Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS (STANDING ORDERS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 62, line 110, at end, add—
(2) The Examiner shall give not less than two clear days' notice in the Private Bill Office of the day on which any such bill will be examined.

Standing Order 63, line 63, at end, add—
(2) The Examiner shall give not less than two clear days' notice in the Private Bill Office of the day on which any such bill will be examined.

Standing Order 75, line 38, after first "bill," insert "a bill referred to the Examiners after second reading."

Standing Order 206, line 4, leave out from "bill," to "shall," in line 6.

Standing Order 220, line 56, at end, insert—
() The Examiner shall give not less than two clear days' notice in the Private Bill Office of the day on which the bill will be examined.

There is little substance in these Amendments. It is really bringing Standing Orders into line with the present practice. I can give an explanation if it is required, but I do not think it is necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Stamp Collection (Public Exhibition)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will place on view to the public the stamp collection in his Department.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The question of doing something on these lines is being considered and an announcement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.

Stamp Selling Machines

Miss Burton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the shortage of stamp machines; and, in view of the difficulty caused to residents in the outlying districts of Coventry and elsewhere, if he will make a statement upon the supply position as at present.

Mr. Gammans: There is no shortage of stamp selling machines as such, but, because of a shortage of the cases in which they are housed, there has been some delay in installing machines attached to pillar boxes and mounted on pedestals. Arrangements have recently been made to step up the rate of supply of these cases. If the hon. Member will let me have details of any difficulties that may have come to her notice, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.

Miss Burton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him if, in the outlying districts of Coventry at Tile Hill, where housing progress is rapid, he would see if machines could be put at Standard Avenue and Elm Tree Avenue?

Mr. Gammans: I will look into those particular places.

Overseas Telegrams (Charges)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why details of the increases in charges for overseas telegrams were not made available to hon. Members; and why the details were withheld from publication in the London Gazette until 29th August, when the increases were to operate from 1st September.

Mr. Gammans: The main effect of the new charges was explained in my reply to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) on 30th July. The list of actual charges takes up more than 17 pages of the Gazette and, in order to avoid misunderstanding and confusion, it is desirable that publication, both in the Gazette and in the Post Office Guide, should be reasonably near to the day on which the charges are due to take effect.

Mr. Ness Edwards: My complaint is not that it took up so much time but that hon. Members of this House are surely entitled to this information, which could have been made available either in the Library or in HANSARD? I think it is quite wrong that the public should not have this information at the earliest possible date rather than the day before it happened.

Mr. Gammans: I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten Regulation 1023 of 1950, for which I think he was responsible, which states there is no question of laying this information before the House but that a statement should be published in the way it has been published.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But surely the hon. Gentleman does not make that the excuse for delaying publication for a month?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir, not delaying publication? In my original answer to the Question I gave a pretty clear idea of what the increased charges would be.

Trade Union Membership

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to compose the differences between the Post Office unions, having regard to his statement on the Terrington Committee Report.

Mr. Gammans: In response to my noble Friend's suggestion, the unions concerned have agreed to try to compose their differences by direct discussions between themselves: such discussions are now in progress. As I stated in the House on 25th June, my noble Friend proposes to review the position during the early part of next year.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a circular was sent to hon. Members on this side of the House

before the Recess indicating that all three of these break-away unions would not meet for the purpose of these discussions and, in view of that, the Question was put down? Is he now satisfied that these discussions are taking place on an amicable basis?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, and I hope with good results.

Investigation Department (Staff)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the numbers employed in the Investigation Department of the Post Office in May, 1952, and at present.

Mr. Gammans: 205 and 207, respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Postmaster-General having admitted the other day that the present security arrangements in the Post Office are inadequate, does not this answer reveal a somewhat niggardly appreciation of the need to improve security arrangements in the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend merely pointed out that, if we were to expect gang robberies with violence in the streets of London, then the previous arrangements are inadequate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does this small increase represent the maximum that the Post Office will do as far as the Investigation Departments is concerned?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.

Loss Claims

Mr. Proctor: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the amount of loss sustained during the last 12 months of old currency notes being transported for destruction, new currency notes, and registered mail, respectively, together with the total claims made on the Post Office for losses; and the total liability for losses accepted by the Post Office, respectively.

Mr. Gammans: I regret I cannot give answers to the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman in the exact form in which he asks them. The Post Office would not know when accepting registered packets from banks what is in the packets, but we understand that normally the percentage of old notes to new is relatively small. The total estimated loss of currency due


to mailbag thefts for the year ending 30th September last was £290,000, but the liability for these losses which falls on the Post Office is only about £5,000.
The Post Office does not keep centrally any record of claims in respect of general losses, but in the financial year 1951–52 the amount paid in compensation for losses of registered letters and parcels was nearly £73,000.

Mr. Proctor: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the last time I put a similar Question he suggested that it was only a small percentage of the letters in which old notes were involved? Has he had an opportunity of looking at the suggestion that was made for the cancellation of these notes before they pass through the Post Office, and would he like to receive a copy of a letter from a bank manager, which I have here, which commends the suggestion I made to him on the last occasion?

Mr. Gammans: I am always delighted to receive any sort of letter from the hon. Gentleman, but, regarding the defacement of notes, it would not be a matter for the Post Office, but would have to be decided as between the banks and the Treasury.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that the safety precautions taken by the services which assist the Post Office to carry on their business are as good as he would wish them to be?

Mr. Gammans: No safety precautions are ever as good as anyone would like them to be, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are very much alive to the need for tightening up the whole basis of security, in view of what has happened, not only in regard to the Post Office but in other directions, in the past year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Transmitters, Pontop Pike and Belfast

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider his decision not to supply temporary television services for the north-east of Scotland before the Coronation.

Miss Ward: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the growing dissatisfaction that television is not available for the North East Coast, particularly in view of the Coronation next year, he will reconsider his decision not to proceed with Pontop Pike at the present time owing to the financial situation.

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is growing demand in Northern Ireland that television facilities should be provided in time to allow Ulster people to view the Coronation; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this demand.

Mr. Gammans: I propose with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to make a general statement on television after Questions.

Transatlantic Relays

Mr. Teeling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether any means have yet been discovered of relaying television to the United States of America and Canada; and when they can be put into practice.

Mr. Gammans: It would be technically possible to relay television to North America, but the practical problems and the enormous cost of setting up any such system rule the idea out for the present.

Mr. Teeling: I realise that it would cost a tremendous amount of money but would it not be possible for something on these lines to be done for the Coronation? I understand the American companies would be more than willing to take part.

Mr. Gammans: It is estimated that it would cost something in the order of £18 million, and I am sure that the House will agree that we should not be justified even in spending a small percentage of that sum at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the number of outstanding applications for telephones on the Brixton exchange will be reduced.

Mr. Gammans: I expect a progressive reduction to start about the end of this year, when the extension of the exchange equipment will be completed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that, during the past 12 months, the number of outstanding applications from Brixton has increased by 22 per cent., and that, at the present rate of completion, it will take something like 67 years, without touching any new applications? Can he give me an assurance that Brixton is not being worse treated than any other exchange?

Mr. Gammans: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that, by the end of this year, there should be a very rapid increase in the number of subscribers to the telephone, and I think that, early next year, he will find that the number of his constituents who will be able to ring him up will be very considerably increased.

Matlock

Mr. E. Wakefield: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many outstanding applications there are for telephones in the Matlock area; how much preliminary work to meet the demand has already been done in the area and at what cost; and what would be the cost of completing the work.

Mr. Gammans: Fifty-seven. The preliminary work, recently completed, consisted of the laying of ducts for the new cables required to meet these applications and to provide for future growth, and cost £14,000. The provision of the cables themselves will cost about £10,000.

Mr. Wakefield: Could the Minister say exactly how much has already been spent on this work?

Mr. Gammans: If my hon. Friend will put a Question down I will certainly give him that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Personnel Despatch Centre, Lytham-St. Annes

Mr. Albu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what has been the average time, during the last three months, for which men have been held at No. 5 Personnel Despatch Centre, Lytham-St. Annes, pending posting overseas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): During June, July and August of this year, the average time was about 13 days.

Personal Case

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why S. A. C. Vernon Walker was withdrawn from a university course in Russian five days before the course was due to begin.

Mr. Ward: As I explained to the hon. Member in my letter of 13th October, S. A. C. Walker was selected for the course at Cambridge in error and was withdrawn when the mistake was discovered. This airman was then returned to his former trade of photographer, instead of being allowed to complete the full nine-month course for training regular airmen as second-class translators at a Joint Services School for Linguists. Instructions are now being issued for S. A. C. Walker to be returned to a Linguist School.
I greatly regret the disappointment which has been caused to the airman and to his parents through our mistake in informing him that he had been earmarked for a university course.

Mr. Mallalieu: Could the Under-Secretary say to which school he is being returned?

Mr. Ward: I hope Coulsdon, but I am not sure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Air Attaches (Flying Experience)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many civil air attaches are competent to, and, in fact, fly aircraft in the course of their duties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Of the three civil air attaches and three civil air advisers, four have flying experience. One of these flies in the course of his duties.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? In view of the importance of the export of British aircraft and equipment, ought not all


these men to be able to fly in the course of their duties? Is it because we use the system of a permanent civil servant, instead of using the man most capable of doing that work?

Mr. Maudling: While agreeing with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the importance of promoting the sales of British aircraft abroad, I would not agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation. Flying experience is of course valuable to everybody occupying this type of position, but it is by no means the only consideration to be taken into account in making these appointments.

Major Anstruther-Gray: In view of the fact that a great many people have flying experience, would my hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Mr. Maudling: I have looked into it closely. I say that the possession of flying experience is one of the qualifications, but we have to decide what man is best, and we have to take into account not only that consideration but many others as well.

Helicopter Stations

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation when the South Bank site for a helicopter station is likely to be ready; and whether he will give the positions of other helicopter stations in Great Britain already earmarked.

Mr. Maudling: Discussions are proceeding on the future of the existing South Bank site, which has been used for a series of experimental flights. The earmarking of sites for airstops elsewhere is a matter for the local authorities concerned, and I understand that a number have reserved sites. If my hon. Friend has any particular town in mind, I will endeavour to provide him with further information.

London Airport

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the inadequacy of the reception buildings at London Airport, where at peak periods the departure lounges are overcrowded, and where even slight delays in the departure of aeroplanes cause confusion; and if he will cause early steps to be taken to increase the accommodation, especially in view of

the likelihood that passenger traffic will be considerably increased next year.

Mr. Maudling: Although there is some congestion at the busiest times, the reception accommodation at London Airport is reasonably adequate for present needs. The facilities will, of course, be extended and improved as soon as the permanent buildings, now under construction, can be brought into use.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will install F.I.D.O. at London Airport and so save the large sums of public money necessary to build the long runways at Gatwick Airport.

Mr. Maudling: The installation of F.I.D.O. at London Airport would be no substitute for Gatwick. It would provide neither a satisfactory alternative in all weather conditions nor a lightening of the regular traffic load, both of which purposes Gatwick will serve.

Mr. Perkins: If F.I.D.O. were to be installed at London Airport there would be no delays due to fog; in fact aircraft could operate 100 per cent.

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry to say that that is not so. This kind of apparatus is by no means satisfactory in all fog conditions.

30. Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the intentions of his Department regarding the use of No. 1 runway at London Airport; and whether it is now possible to restrict the use of this runway to daylight hours.

Mr. Maudling: It is planned to bring No. 1 runway back into use during the winter of 1953–54. Generally, this runway will not be used at night for take-offs to and landings from the east, but I can give no assurance that it will be possible to restrict its use to daylight hours.

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to start the building of the blast walls at London Airport designed to deaden the noise of engines being serviced by day or night.

Mr. Maudling: Work will start at London Airport at the beginning of November on the construction of an experimental acoustic wall.

Mr. Harris: Is the Minister aware that the noise of engines being serviced at night is the greatest curse of airports, and can he give an undertaking that experiments will continue persistently to see whether better methods can be found of deadening this noise on the assumption that this acoustic wall will not achieve all that is desirable?

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of this problem as it affects residents in airport areas. I can say that the Corporations and foreign airlines have expressed their willingness to use this first wall to the fullest extent possible so that we may get as much information of its effectiveness at the earliest possible moment.

Baggage Trolley Charges, Bovingdon

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will consider reducing the minimum amount of 12s. per hour charged for the mechanical baggage trolley at Bovingdon, in view of the fact that many firms use this trolley for only five minutes, and are thus faced with an unnecessarily heavy charge.

Mr. Maudling: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the basis of the minimum charge for the hire of the baggage trolley at Bovingdon has been reduced from one hour to one quarter of an hour.

Alcock and Brown Memorial

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what further progress has been made towards providing a memorial to Sir John Alcock and Sir Arthur Whitten-Brown at London Airport.

Mr. Maudling: As the House was informed on 5th March, the Royal Aero Club is sponsoring an appeal for funds for this memorial. It has been decided to limit the appeal to aeronautical interests. I am informed that the sculptor, Mr. William McMillan, R.A., will shortly start work on the statue.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread misunderstanding in other countries as to who were the first men to fly directly across the Atlantic, and that this well-placed memorial will be a fitting tribute to one of the most heroic deeds in the history of aviation?

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of this misunderstanding, and I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend and to anyone else who will assist in dispelling it.

Scottish Services

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what proposals have so far been submitted from private companies who are prepared to take over the aviation services in Scotland at present operated by the British European Airways Corporation.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has received no firm proposals.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say where now are all those companies which were straining at the leash to take over these Scottish services?

Mr. Maudling: I think the companies are at their registered offices. I do not quite understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that since State control the services in Scotland have been much reduced? Is it not a fact that it is not economic only to operate internal air services, and, therefore, can my hon. Friend say whether any tenders have been invited for services other than those for purely internal operation in Scotland?

Mr. Maudling: The Question asked what proposals have been received, and I said that my right hon. Friend has received no firm proposals. He has been anxious and continues to be anxious to examine any proposition put before him which in his opinion may contribute to the improvement of air services.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the last Question was asked statements have been made which indicate that there is a great hankering to go back to the romantic pioneering days of the opening up of Scottish air services, and would he be careful that any efforts made are gone into realistically so that people realise that modern conditions are quite different from the conditions of safety required in those days?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the requirement of modern conditions, but I would very much deprecate any writing down of the valuable work done by pioneer services.

Aircrew Licences

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation under what regulation he has powers to suspend or revoke the licences of aircrew; whether the regulations provide for any hearing of aircrew concerned before a decision is made, or any appeal after the decision is made; and how far he is empowered by regulation to restrict rather than completely suspend an aircrew licence.

Mr. Maudling: Article 28 of the Air Navigation Order, 1949, gives powers to suspend or revoke aircrew licences. Provision is made for investigation before taking such action, but in any particular case the Minister may suspend a licence provisionally pending investigation. No specific provision is made for appeal against such decisions, although the licence holder is, of course, free to make any representations he wishes. The Article includes powers for the restriction of a licence as an alternative to suspension.

Mr. Beswick: I do not wish to comment on a recent case, but would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the procedure disclosed was unsatisfactory, and will he undertake to get in touch with the Airline Pilots' Association with a view to developing a more satisfactory and fair procedure in these cases?

Mr. Maudling: I am very glad at any time to listen to the views of the Airline Pilots' Association on this very important question, but I would not agree that the present situation is not satisfactory. The overriding responsibility of my right hon. Friend is to make sure that no one is held up to the public as possessing qualifications certified by the Minister if the Minister is of opinion that he is an unsatisfactory person to hold such qualifications.

Mr. Beswick: But am I right in thinking that, on the other hand, the Minister would not wish to deprive an individual of his livelihood if he is capable of carrying out duties rather more restricted than those hitherto carried out?

Mr. Maudling: I have no desire whatever to deprive any individual of his livelihood, but neither have I any desire to reduce the standards of safety to which the public are entitled.

Navigational Qualifications

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will re-examine the standards of proficiency in navigation, now accepted by the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, in respect of captains and navigating officers of their aircraft.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; I am satisfied that the Corporations maintain high standards in these matters.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the somewhat disquieting facts revealed in the report on the accident to the Hermes aircraft in Africa, does not my hon. Friend think that the navigational qualifications ought to be tightened up in some direction?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend is considering what has been revealed by the report made by the French authorities on that accident, but, in the meantime, he considers that the standards of safety maintained by both our Corporations are extremely high.

Airports (Siting)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will set up a committee to consider the whole question of siting of airports, and, in particular, to consider the effect on the local populations of the siting of existing and proposed airports.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. Few, if any, new sites will be required for future civil airports. Any development or extension of existing airports is invariably preceded by close study of the effects on the local populations and by consultation with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Harris: Does that answer mean that the Minister is not prepared to consider any fresh airports, having regard to the anticipated great increase in the traffic at London Airport which is said to be going up to 100 planes an hour?

Mr. Maudling: It means, as I have said, that few if any new sites will be required for civil aviation.

Mr. Bottomley: The Minister will be aware of correspondence passing between himself and myself about the airport at


Rochester. He must recognise that airports in built-up areas are of great public concern, and will he consider the establishment of a committee of this kind?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think a committee of this kind would serve the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Car Park Charges, Northolt

Mr. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he is aware that, by imposing a tax of 1s. 6d. on motorists parking their cars at Northolt whilst visiting the restaurant, he discourages the patronage of the airport restaurant; and if he will withdraw this tax.

Mr. Maudling: A charge of 6d. for the first hour, 1s. 6d. up to 12 hours and 2s. for 24 hours has been made since July, 1951, for parking cars at Northolt Airport. The car parks are provided at public expense and the charges, which are in no sense a tax, conform to normal practice.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be a very good plan to extend the hour to an hour and a half in order that lunchers and diners may not have to watch the clock all the time they are having a meal? Will he not extend the time for half an hour?

Mr. Maudling: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have investigated the possibility. The fact is, however, that these hours are part of an agreement made with the concessionaire during the time when the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) occupied my position, and this agreement is in general proving very satisfactory to the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his information on this point is inaccurate or, at least, incomplete? The concession was not made during the time that I was connected with the Ministry of Civil Aviation. There was certainly an agreement that increased fees should be payable after one hour, but it was never imposed until one and a half hours had elapsed. The new contract has been put into operation on the change of Government. Will the hon. Gentleman see if, in the interest of all concerned, his Department can make the very sensible arrangement which my hon. Friend suggests?

Mr. Maudling: I am informed that the arrangements date from July, 1951, but if I am in error in saying that the hon. Gentleman occupied my place at that time, I apologise to him and to everybody concerned.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May it not be that it is now more efficiently run and that they do pay for one hour and not for one and a half hours?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE

Embassy Staff, South America (Allowances)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a statement on the recent 25 per cent. cut in allowances for embassy staff in South America; and on the recent 50 per cent. increases for occasional visitors' allowances.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): There has not been a general cut of 25 per cent. in the allowances of embassy staffs in South America. The Foreign Service Inspectors made a routine inspection of diplomatic and consular posts in that area early this year, in the course of which the foreign allowances of the staff and the daily rates of subsistence allowance payable to occasional visitors were reviewed in the light of changes in the cost of living. At some places the foreign allowances were reduced, at others they were increased. Changes were also made in the rates of subsistence allowance.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. Friend realise that at least one member of the embassy staff in South Africa, with a wife and three children to maintain, has had his allowances cut by over £700 a year, and that the Foreign Office official who went out to look into this stayed at the best hotel and subsequently increased his allowance by 50 per cent.?

Mr. Nutting: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of the case I will, of course, look into it, but I would say that these Foreign Service Inspectors do a very difficult job in a very remarkable, tactful and efficient way.

Mr. Teeling: Was not a sliding-scale arranged a year or two ago in regard to the extra cost of living in different parts of the world?

Mr. Nutting: That, of course, is precisely the reason why certain allowances have been increased and others reduced. This has been due to the rise or fall, as the case may be, of the cost of living.

Missing Diplomats

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the disappearance of Mr. Burgess and Mr. MacLean.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very grave disturbance in the public mind about these happenings and that the sooner some full investigation can be carried out and a report made, without damaging security thereby, the sooner will the public mind be put at rest?

Mr. Nutting: Inquiries are continuing into these cases, as I have often informed the House. As to the possibility of a public inquiry, an open inquiry of this kind could not be held without revealing highly confidential details and methods used in the current investigation and the channels through which inquiry is being conducted. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend would agree that disclosure of such information would be prejudicial to the public interest.

Foreign Office Appointments (Security Precautions)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports on individuals are called for and examined before appointments to important posts in the Foreign Office are made.

Mr. Nutting: Recommendations for appointments to senior posts in the Foreign Office are made on the basis of the confidential personal records of the officer concerned kept by the Personnel Department, which include periodical reports made by his superiors, and of the personal knowledge of him possessed by the Senior Promotions Board of the Foreign Office.
In addition, special inquiries are now made about Government staff employed, or who are under consideration for

employment, on exceptionally secret work. This procedure applies to all important posts in the Foreign Office.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If that is the case, can my hon. Friend explain how it came about that two disreputable characters such as Burgess and MacLean could have been in important positions in the Foreign Service?

Mr. Nutting: The question of security precautions and the vetting of staff to be engaged on highly secret and important work has been tightened up since the incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. INFORMATION SERVICES (COST)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Information Services; and how much of this is borne by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nutting: The services to which my hon. Friend refers are not a separate body, but form part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Secretariat. Since N.A.T.O.'s budget is confidential, I am not able to give information about its provisions, without first obtaining the concurrence of the other member Governments.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister continue to do everything possible to make the work of this North Atlantic Treaty Organisation more widely known, as far too little is known about it?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.

Mr. S. Silverman: As the Question asks the Minister to make this work more widely known, will the Minister also inquire into why the amount of money spent should be treated as confidential and why that should not be more widely known?

Mr. Nutting: The reason why it is confidential is, of course, that it is a defence organisation, but the United Kingdom military and civil contributions are put into the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence Estimates.

Mr. H. Morrison: One follows why money on military expenditure must be confidential, but could not the hon.


Gentleman go into the question of the publication of the cost of non-Service, ordinary administrative costs and so on? It is possible for these international organisations to be extravagant. Surely people have a right to know about these non-military costs.

Mr. Nutting: Certainly, I will further consider the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Abductions, Berlin

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the extent of kidnappings by Communists in the Allied Zones of Berlin; and what steps have been taken by the British High Commissioner in the case of Dr. Linse.

Mr. Nutting: From January, 1950, to September, 1952, West Berlin police records show 32 cases of alleged abduction from the western sectors of Berlin. Some of these cases have already been rejected by the Berlin Public Prosecutor, and it is probable that some others could not be substantiated.
The United Kingdom High Commissioner has on two occasions been formally associated with letters of protest about the abduction of Dr. Linse sent by the United States High Commission to the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Reid: Can the Minister say if these kidnappings were the result of private enterprise or was any Government implicated?

Mr. Nutting: As far as I know, no private enterprise is allowed in the Soviet Union or in territories under Soviet control.

Sir D. Savory: Is it necessary to maintain the Russian guards in front of the monument which is in the British sector in Berlin in view of the fact that these guards have been proved to assist in kidnappings?

Mr. Nutting: If the hon. Member will give me notice of that Question I will take note of it.

Captured War Documents

Mr. Dalton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that no captured

German war documents, or copies thereof, relating to submarine or air warfare against this country, now in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, have been, or will be, handed over to the West German Federal Government.

Mr. Nutting: No such documents have been returned by Her Majestys' Government to the German Federal Government. Before any documents are returned to the German Federal Government Her Majesty's Government will satisfy themselves that no documents affecting the security of this country are included amongst those to be returned.

Mr. Dalton: Is it the case that the Federal German Government have asked for the return of a number of documents, including the complete German wartime plan for bringing this country to her knees by air and submarine warfare, and including also many other German intelligence reports? If they have asked for these, has not a flat denial already been given?

Mr. Nutting: This question, is being discussed with the Federal German Government at the moment.

Mr. Dalton: Do I understand that it is still possible that the Government may decide to return to the German Government these documents? Quite apart from the undesirability of returning them to Bonn, does he not agree that if they do go there they might not stay there but go further East?

Mr. Nutting: I would refer to the reply I have already given. We shall satisfy ourselves that no documents affecting the security of this country will be returned to the Federal German Government.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend confirm that copies of these documents, under a long standing wartime agreement, have been supplied to the Russian Government, who may have supplied them to the East German Government, and they may have been supplied back to the West German Government through those channels?

Mr. Nutting: That is a very much wider question.

Mr. J. Hynd: In view of the assurance he has given, can the hon. Gentleman add a further assurance, that we shall


have the initiative as to whether such documents will be handed back or not, as some documents may be handed back by another Government having control of another part of Germany? Can we stop such documents being handed back, even if they are not in our own possession?

Mr. Nutting: We shall act with the United States and the French Governments in this matter, No documents as far as I am aware have been handed back by either of these two Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (BRITISH TANKERS)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now reached agreement with the Egyptian Government on the passage of British tankers through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Nutting: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the passage through the Canal of tankers bound for Haifa. This situation has not changed since my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State replied to his Question of 26th May.

Mr. Jeger: Have not these discussions been going on for a very long time, and were we not led to expect some time ago that the change of Government would mean a firm hand being taken by the Conservatives if they were put in office? When are we going to see some results of the promise made by the present Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Nutting: It will not have escaped the attention of the hon. Member that there have been several changes in the Egyptian Government since there was a change here.

Mr. McNeil: If we are to understand that there have been recent conversations between Her Majesty's Government and this new Government in Cairo, can we be told that this subject of the passage of tankers on their lawful business was taken up in those conversations?

Mr. Nutting: This subject forms part of the present and future negotiations with the Egyptian Government. I prefer not to say anything further at this stage because I feel that nothing I can say in the House of Commons would help towards a satisfactory solution of this problem.

Mr. McNeil: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a new subject, that the Government in Cairo must be fully aware of the implications, and that since our rights are clear and unambiguous he cannot possibly harm the situation by telling us what was said and what progress was made in the recent conversations on this subject?

Mr. Nutting: As I have said, this subject forms part of the present and future negotiations with the Egyptian Government, and more than that I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what military equipment and material has been supplied to Spain since the lifting of the export ban on such material.

Mr. Nutting: As I pointed out in the House on 15th October, only common-use material, that is, material which can be used for civilian or military purposes, is being sent to Spain. It is not specifically military material.
The following material has been supplied to Spain from the United Kingdom since July last: 14 aeropropellers—value £12,000; minor items of electronic equipment, radio crystals, etc.—to a value of approximately £1,000.

Mr. Jeger: If no items of definite military equipment are being sent to Spain, will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to make a gesture to Spain which has horrified the democratic world by suggesting that the ban on military equipment was going to be raised and that we were going to help to arm Fascists?

Mr. Nutting: It was never said that the ban on military equipment was going to be raised. What we said was that the ban on certain types of common-use material which we could not
sell elsewhere was going to be raised. If the hon. Member misunderstood the situation that is not my fault.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not that reply indicate that the commercial gain from this change of policy is negligible and is out-weighed by the moral and political loss which results?

Mr. Nutting: It is far too early to make any such assessment of the economic value of this modification of our policy. But, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, this is only a beginning. As I told him the other day, we have already licensed a contract for £500,000 worth of Merlin engines.

Mr. Davies: If this is only a beginning, does it mean that we are going to lift the ban completely on arms to Spain and depart from the policy pursued up to now?

Mr. Nutting: No. It will only apply to common-use materials, as I have informed the hon. Member on a number of occasions.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the "horror of the democratic world" is nothing like as great over this as it was over the selling of jet engines to Russia?

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend not agree that if this is the policy pursued with regard to Spain in this matter, countries such as Yugoslavia and Spain should be treated equally in these matters?

Mr. Nutting: That is a very much wider matter. I have been asked a Question about Spain and would prefer not to deal with Yugoslavia in the same answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMPS, KOREA (INCIDENTS)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further disturbances have taken place in prisoner-of-war camps in Korea since 1st August, 1952; and what British troops have been involved.

Mr. Nutting: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 15th October.

Mr. Edelman: Is there not something repugnant in men without firearms, however obstreperous they may be, being shot down in this manner? Is it not the case that during the Second World War no comparable incidents occurred in prisoner-of-war camps controlled by British troops? Could not similar methods be applied in Korea?

Mr. Nutting: As my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for Maldon last Wednesday, we have not yet received the report of the United Nations commander on the spot, and I should prefer not to make any statement or draw any conclusion until that report is received.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations Organisation on the casualties caused on 1st October to Korean prisoners of war on the Island of Cheju.

Mr. Nutting: The report of the United Nations Command investigation has not yet been received. In point of fact the prisoners concerned in the Cheju incident on 1st October referred to by the hon. Gentleman were Chinese, not Koreans.

Mr. Davies: Are not the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office aware by this afternoon that the prisoners on this island who were massacred on 1st October had been placed there because they were regarded as being co-operative and anti-Communist and any attempt to repatriate them to North Korea or China would have meant mass suicides among these people? Cannot we get an explanation of this large scale murder of prisoners of war on 1st October?

Mr. Nutting: As I told the hon. Member, the Report of the United Nations Command investigation has not yet been received. The House was told by my right hon. Friend last Wednesday that we understand that the prisoners involved in this compound were prisoners who elected to be repatriated and, therefore, can be presumed at any rate not to be anti-Communist.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps have been taken since last this matter was before the House to expedite the receipt in this country of any report that we may be entitled to have as to what actually occurred on 1st October in this place?
Does he not realise that as partners in this adventure we have a responsibility ourselves, and that there is great anxiety felt in this country among people who do not accept my particular ideas about it regarding the enormity of shooting down unarmed prisoners merely on the ground


that they would not stop singing their own national songs on their own national day? If that is the whole of the truth, is it not in everyone's interest that we should know the full facts as early as possible?

Mr. Nutting: We have asked our Embassy in Washington to let us have this report directly it is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the chairman and members of the Committee of Inquiry into the Overseas Information and Broadcasting Services and the terms of reference of the committee.

Mr. Nutting: The following have accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to serve on this Committee:
Lord Drogheda, who will act as Chairman;

Sir R. Bruce Lockhart,
Mrs. Mary Stocks,
Mr. J. W. Platt,
Mr. Gervas Huxley,
Mr. Donald McLachlan,
Mr. Victor Feather, and
Mr. Laurence Heyworth.

The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
To assess the value, actual and potential, of the overseas information work of the Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office, Colonial Office, Board of Trade and Central Office of Information; the External Services of the B.B.C.; and the work of the British Council; to advise upon the relative importance of different methods and services in different areas and circumstances; and to make recommendations for future policy.
I hope that the Committee will hold its first meeting in the very near future.

Mr. Davies: While expressing gratitude at the appointment of this Committee at long last, does not the Under-Secretary consider that there has been rather an undue delay in its appointment and that it would have been better if he had taken the advice given from this side of the House during the debate on a Motion on 2nd April, when it was proposed that a committee of inquiry should be appointed? Secondly, is this inquiry confined to purely external services or to home services as well?

Mr. Nutting: As far as the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary

question is concerned, it is confined to the external services of the Departments which I have listed in my answer. As regards the first part of the question, I entirely agree that it would have been very much better had this Committee been set up in the lifetime of the late Government.

Mr. Shackleton: Since it is unlikely that this Committee will be able to report before the Estimate is completed, will the Minister see if there is any sort of advance or interim report which can be obtained so that there will not be other cuts of the kind which the Information Services suffered last year?

Mr. Nutting: The question of the Estimate was covered in the answer given to my predecessor at the end of July. If the hon. Member will look up that answer I think he will be satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION DAY (PUBLIC HOLIDAY)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if the Government will proclaim the Coronation Day as a national holiday.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It is the intention of the Government to recommend to Her Majesty that Coronation Day, Tuesday, 2nd June, 1953, should be proclaimed a Bank Holiday and a public holiday throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lewis: The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of the fact that that statement will be received with much acclamation by all sections of the House and by the people of the country as a whole.

Mr. McNeil: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the holiday would be enjoyed much more if all the proceedings in the Abbey were televised?

The Prime Minister: Really, I think that that has nothing to do with the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH (PILGRIMS' DINNER)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish his speech made at the Pilgrims' dinner on 14th October as a White Paper.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it is not usual to issue to the House of Commons as White Papers the speeches of Prime Ministers or other Ministers.
However complimentary the hon. Member's wish may be, I should not like to claim unusual privilege on this occasion.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that this was rather an unusual speech, in which the Prime Minister said that the next war would be entirely different from any other war that had ever taken place; that the main decisions would be taken in the first month or the first week, and that there would be indescribable torments of the civilian population, could not the Prime Minister amplify this and circulate it to the various Services so that we can have a recasting of our defence strategy?

The Prime Minister: There were a certain number of sentences in this speech to which I gave a great deal of thought. If the hon. Gentleman has any passage in mind about which he wishes to be informed, if he would put down a Question I could give him that passage—if it were not too lengthy—in the ordinary way as a circulated answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRANTS FROM EUROPE (INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom will now become a member of the Provisional International Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe.

Mr. Nutting: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave her on 29th July. Since then, the Executive Director of the Provisional International Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe has made fresh representations to Her Majesty's Government, these are under consideration.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Under-Secretary aware that should Britain become a member of this organisation it would cause great satisfaction on the Continent, because of Britain's great knowledge of migration problems? Is it not a fact that the financial contribution expected of the United Kingdom is not

very great and that she would be able to recoup a large part of it from the benefits which would come to her through shipping?

Mr. Nutting: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I entirely agree that this action would be welcomed in Europe; but there are other considerations which have to be taken into account. The contribution which we have been asked to make is of the order of £70,000 a year.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that members of the Commonwealth belong to this organisation and that it is engaged on work of great importance both to Europe and the Commonwealth, ought not this Government to belong to it?

Mr. Nutting: I shall certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (SELF-GOVERNMENT STATUTE)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will withhold approval of the draft constitution for the Sudan until further consideration has been given to the proposal that women shall not enjoy voting rights, except in three out of 81 constituencies.

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Government's Draft Constitution for the Sudan excludes women from the franchise except in graduate constituencies.

Mr. Nutting: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend proposes to make on the Sudan at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals to settle the dispute between British and Icelandic fishing interests have resulted from his discussions with the Icelandic Government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nutting: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my


right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) on 15th October.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that this dispute has meant that yesterday 4s. 10d. was charged for 10 stone of cod? It was just exactly double what it was a month ago. In view of the very serious difficulties created for the housewives, can he expedite the discussions which are going on?

Mr. Nutting: We shall certainly expedite the consideration of this question. I am well aware that there are many considerable difficulties involved, such as those which the hon. Lady has raised.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman say if the Government have been able to impress upon the Icelandic Government the great difficulty of making unilateral decisions on matters of this kind and the fact that it is not right for that Government to cause great hardship to the fishermen of this country without discussing these matters on a dual basis?

Mr. Nutting: I thought I had made known to the House that that was precisely the point of view we put to the Icelandic Government, but I am glad to have an opportunity of repeating it.

Miss Ward: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the difficulties and problems of the fishermen, who are of paramount importance in this dispute?

Mr. Nutting: I am doing my best to bear in mind all the relevant considerations in regard to this very thorny problem.

Commander Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that a very serious situation is developing here, which is going to get very much worse during the winter, and that this matter should be treated as one of great urgency, otherwise our fishermen in the North Sea will be very seriously affected?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

Seized British Property

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what, approximately, is the value of British property in China seized by the Communist

authorities without payment of rent or compensation.

Mr. Nutting: About £9 million.

Mr. Reid: Is there any chance whatever of recovering this property, or getting any compensation for it?

Mr. Nutting: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member last week, the full rights of the owners of these properties, where they so desire, have been reserved by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires.

Arrested British Subjects

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects are held incommunicado by the Chinese Communist authorities; and whether any have yet been brought to trial for the alleged offences which led to their arrest.

Mr. Nutting: Eight British subjects are under arrest in China: six of them are held incommunicado and despite repeated efforts by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires it has proved impossible to find out whether or not they have been tried.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could my hon. Friend say on what charges they were arrested and on what grounds they are eventually to be brought to trial?

Mr. Nutting: Of the six who were held incommunicado, No Sir, because Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has not been able to get any information or reply out of the Chinese authorities on this matter.

Mr. Nicholson: Do Her Majesty's Government contemplate any further or more severe steps?

Mr. Nutting: Of course we shall continue to try to obtain contact with these unfortunate people and also to do everything we can to help them and get proceedings against them expedited if we cannot get them released.

UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY (TUNISIA AND MOROCCO)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom delegates to the United Nations Assembly on the subjects of Tunisia and Morocco.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government consider that the issues in Tunisia and Morocco fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of France. Having regard to Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter, Her Majesty's Government therefore hold that these issues are not questions which it is within the competence of the United Nations to discuss. The United Kingdom Delegation has already made this clear at the United Nations.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the British Government at the United Nations is not in a very small minority in this matter, and whether this is not a case where it would be good if we took the same line as our American allies?

Mr. Nutting: I do not agree with the hon. Member. We do not hold that this matter is within the competence of the United Nations to discuss.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Bitter Oranges

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food how many oranges were available to the housewife during each of the past five years for making marmalade.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): In the three seasons beginning December, 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively, an average quantity of 2,000 tons was allocated to retailers by my Department for sale to the public. Since May, 1950, bitter oranges have been imported and distributed by private traders, and I am therefore unable to say what quantity has been available. But a total of some
20,000 tons has been imported by the private
trade in each season, an increase of 25 per cent. over imports in each of the previous three seasons.

Cheese

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he will take steps now to have next year's expected summer surplus of milk made into cheese, and thus improve next year's cheese ration.

Major Lloyd George: I am already giving priority to the manufacture of cheese, and the cheese factories will be

working to their maximum capacity during the period of next summer's surplus.

Mr. Lewis: Does that mean that the manufacturers cannot use the surplus of milk to make cheese? Is that the reason why each year there is a surplus which is not turned into cheese?

Major Lloyd George: No, there is another priority, which is for infant feeding. Cheese comes next to that, but the cheese production in this country at the moment is more than it was before the war.

Mr. Edward Davies: Does the Minister appreciate that in the industrial areas there is a great shortage of cheese and, although the statement he has just made—that it is more than before the war—is rather astounding, would he do everything possible to make available more cheese to people who regard it as a regular item of their diet, as there is a very great shortage?

Retail Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food the controlled retail price of all foods coming within the purview of his Department at 1st October, 1951; and the price of these commodities at the latest convenient stated date.

Major Lloyd George: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister say whether generally there has been an increase, or whether there has been a decrease since controls have come off these commodities.

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member knows, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget speech, there would be an increase on certain items as a result of the lower subsidies.

Mr. Lewis: But is that not directly contrary to promises we keep getting from the Government, who keep saying that the prices of food are going down? Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us when they are going down?

Following is the information:


The following table gives the maximum retail prices of the foods listed at 1st October 1951 and 17th October, 1952:


Commodity
Unit
Maximum retail prices
Remarks


at 1st October, 1951
at 17th October, 1952


Bacon
lb.
about 2s. 7d. (weighted average)
about 3s. 10d. (weighted average)



Bananas
lb.
1s. 0d.
1s. 0d.



Bread
1¾ lb.
6d.
7½d.



Butter
lb.
2s. 6d.
3s. 0d.



Cheese (rationed)
lb.
1s. 2d.
2s. 2d.



Chocolate and Chocolate Confectionery
—
various
various
No change in price between the two dates.


Compound Cooking Fat
lb.
1s. 4d.
1s. 6d.



Condensed Milk (canned)
—
various
various
Increases of 1d.-2d. per can. See relevant Order (S.I. 1951 No. 1722 and S.I. 1952 No. 1068).


Cream (clotted)
lb.
6s. 6d.
7s. 6d.



Dried Fruits
—
various
various
No change in price between the two dates.


Dripping
lb.
1s. 4½d.
1s. 4½d.



Eggs
dozen
3s.-5s.
3s.-5s.
The price range reflects different grades.


Fish (canned imported)
Numerous types and sizes.
various
various
See relevant Orders (S.I. 1951 No. 1561 and S.I. 1952 No. 328). There has been no change in retail prices between the two dates.


Flour—self raising
lb.
4¾d.
6¼d.



plain
lb.
4d.
5¾d.



Fruit (imported canned).
Tins with contents varying from 11 oz. to 100 oz.
1s. 6d. to 8s. 6d.
1s. 6d. to 8s. 6d.



Lard
lb.
1s. 4d.
1s. 6d.



Margarine
lb.
1s. 2d.
1s. 4d.



Meat
lb.
1s. 8d.
2s. 0d.





(weighted average)
(weighted average)



Meat Products (including canned meats).
Numerous types and sizes
various
various
For price changes see relevant Orders (S.I. 1951 No. 1317 and S.I. 1952 Nos. 1124 and 1619).


Milk—ordinary
pint
5½d.
6½d.



Potatoes
7 lb.
1s. 0½d.
1s. 1¼d.





(weighted average)
(weighted average)



Rice (whole)
lb.
10d.
1s. 1d



Sausages—Beef (in hog casings)
lb.
1s. 6½d.
1s. 10½d.



Sausages—Pork (in hog casings)
lb.
2s. 2d.
2s. 7½d.



Sugar (domestic granulated)
lb.
6d.
7d



Sugar Confectionery
—
various
various
Increase in price of 2d. per lb. between the two dates


Syrup and Treacle
lb.
10d
10½d.

Argentine Meat Negotiations

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food who are now conducting the negotiations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to procure further meat markets from the Argentine; and how many representatives of pre-war meat importers are taking part in these negotiations.

Major Lloyd George: The negotiations in Argentina, which, as the hon. Member knows, cover many financial and trading matters as well as meat, are being conducted by Her Majesty's Ambassador.
The answer to the second part of the Question is, none.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to circulate this information to the Conservative Press?

Tea

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food what complaints he has received, since tea has been de-rationed, of shortages of tea in any areas or of increases in the price of tea.

Major Lloyd George: None whatever I am happy to say that distribution is working smoothly. The consumer now has a wider range of choice and there have been some significant reductions in prices.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this reply will be received with great satisfaction? May we take it as in indication of what will happen as he removes various commodities from control?

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that he will definitely get his reply tomorrow at Cleveland, and at High Wycombe when the by-elections take place there?

SUDAN (SELF-GOVERNMENT STATUTE)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): By your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Sudan.
Last May the Governor-General of the Sudan submitted to Her Majesty's Government and to the Egyptian Government a draft Statute designed to bring about internal self-government. The Statute had been drawn up in the light of discussions in the Constitutional Amendment Commission, composed of Sudanese with a British chairman, and was later discussed and approved in the Sudanese Legislative Assembly.
Her Majesty's Government have today informed the Acting Governor-General that they give their consent to his making the Proclamation necessary to bring the Self-Government Statute into force. Her Majesty's Government's approval is given on the understanding that:

(i) the provisions of the draft concern only the relations between the Governor-General and the other organs of government set up under the Statute—that is to say, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. This state of affairs will continue until, as a result of self-determination, or at some earlier date by agreement between the two Governments, alternative provisions are made for the exercise of these powers;
(ii) except in regard to technical and administrative matters, responsibility for the external affairs of the Sudan belongs as before to the two Governments.

There is an Article in the Statute laying down that no disability shall be attached to Sudanese by reason of sex, and that all persons shall enjoy freedom of conscience and the right freely to confess their religion. With respect to the second of these principles, Her Majesty's Government have expressed the hope that as liberal an interpretation as possible may be given to the freedom of all persons to profess their religion.
The Acting Governor-General's attention has also been drawn to the views recently expressed to me by representatives of various parties in the Sudan on the


desirability of increasing the number of direct elections to be held under the new constitution.
The views of the Egyptian Government on the draft Statute have not yet been received. I hope that they may be in time for consideration by Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government before the Statute is brought into effect.
I should like to take this opportunity to express Her Majesty's Government's pleasure in congratulating the people of the Sudan upon what we hops will be a momentous step forward in the history of their country. The House, will, I am sure, want to join me in this. The Sudanese are now proceeding to self-government, that is to say, government by an all-Sudanese Cabinet, responsible through an all-Sudanese Parliament to the Sudanese people. This is a prelude and a preparation for the exercise by them of self-determination. Her Majesty's Government look forward to the Sudanese exercising self-determination at an early date. In my view, however, this is a matter for the Sudanese Parliament, elected under the provisions of this Statute, to discuss and to decide.

Mr. H. Morrison: Naturally, hon. Members wish to study the important statement made by the Foreign Secretary, but I think I can say for the House generally that we would wish to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the people of the Sudan on this development and hope for every success in the implementation of this important new development. It is the result of a good many years of discussion, in which both sides of the House at some time or another have been involved. I think it is a welcome development, and we all wish the new régime in the Sudan every success in its work.

Mr. E. Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the latest date within which it is open to the Egyptian Government as co-dominus to express its approval or disapproval of the new statute for self-government for the Sudan?

Mr. Eden: I should not like to say definitely the actual date offhand, but my recollection is that it is early in November. We have informed the Egyptian Government that we were making this statement today. I thought that only fair and reasonable, because we have never

admitted the abrogation of the Condominium, and so we have acted in this way.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman's statement means, I take it, that the Sudanese Government now proceed to preparations for elections, and have elections under the existing Government in Khartoum. There is no change in that situation?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, that is as it was before; and officially the Condominium also remains. That is the official position.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that part of his statement which showed that Her Majesty's Government said there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sex or religion will give great satisfaction to many people in this country, and that we shall also be pleased that there will be more constituencies for which there is direct representation?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Lady will be aware, as to the first part of her question, that whatever we may feel—and we have expressed what we feel—it is in the final resort a matter for the Sudanese Parliament to decide. As to direct representation, I have looked into it carefully. Naturally, it is attractive, particularly to people like ourselves who are used to a particular form of democracy. At the same time, there are many parts of the Sudan in which direct election will be quite unworkable. I know that we had the same experience in relation to elections in Cyrenaica some while ago. So although in principle we should like it, in practice we have to recognise what the limitations are.

Sir R. Acland: While wishing to join in the good wishes to the Sudanese people on the great step that is being taken, may I ask whether the clauses which deal with religious liberty do, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, come fully up to the level of the Declaration on Human Rights to which we have subscribed?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, and they are far above those that exist in some countries which are constantly criticising Her Majesty's Government for not doing better.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: In expressing appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, may I ask whether,


whilst it would be difficult to apply direct election in southern Sudan, he will consider an absolute agreement between all Sudanese parties as to its extension to all parts of northern Sudan?

Mr. Eden: I have looked into that very point carefully, and there are difficulties in certain parts of northern Sudan, too. This is really a matter upon which I must be largely guided by the Sudanese Government with their close experience of this, and I do beg the House not, in an excess of zeal to get exactly a reproduction of what is going on here, to spoil what, I think, is a well-carried-out enterprise.

Dr. King: Does the Foreign Secretary's excellent reply on the broad principle of no discrimination in sex and religion mean that the clauses in the draft constitution which did create sex discrimination as far as the franchise is concerned still stand, or have they gone?

Mr. Eden: We have expressed the wish that there should be no sex discrimination in respect of the franchise, but that is a matter which the Sudanese Parliament itself will have to decide when it is elected.

KOREA (MILITARY SITUATION)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the military situation in Korea.
Since my statement on 1st July, there has been considerably more military activity, but that does not mean that there has been any great change in the general military situation.
During September and October the enemy have launched a series of attacks against a number of dominating features along the United Nations' front. These include some 40 hilltop positions, in advance of our main defence line, which the Communists were most anxious to include in their own lines at the time when we were negotiating with them about a cease fire line.
Many of the recent attacks were only in platoon or company strength and may well have been diversionary, but at

several points the Communist troops pressed forward in a determined and often fanatical manner, and attacked again and again despite heavy losses. These assaults have been accompanied by very heavy artillery and mortar fire.
In some localities the United Nations Forces were forced to give ground initially in the face of these attacks, but generally they have been successful in winning back the ground lost in quick counter attacks. However, we have lost to the enemy a small number of these outpost positions in recent battles.
At no point across the entire front has the enemy managed to occupy any part of our main defence line. During one of the most determined of these attacks near Chorwon at the beginning of this month, Chinese troops did succeed in penetrating a small part of our main line for a few hours, but immediate counter attacks threw the Chinese out of these positions.
We are not sure of the reasons for these attacks. The Communists may have wished to strengthen their tactical position in one or two key sectors, possibly before an armistice is signed. On the other hand, they may well have taken the offensive for psychological reasons. So far, at any rate, the fighting has been local and on a relatively small scale. Last week, the United Nations Forces took the initiative and captured two hilltops to the north of Kumhwa; but in turn they have been heavily counter-attacked by the enemy.
There is no evidence of any abnormal movements which would suggest that the enemy are preparing for a major offensive, so the general situation remains much the same as when the last statement was made to the House. The enemy is capable of launching a major offensive at any time without advance warning. The opinion of the responsible commander on the spot is that the Communists could break in, perhaps to a considerable depth, but they would not be able to exploit a break-through.
They would be under constant attack from our aircraft, which are in command of the air over the battle front, although this does not mean that we might not have to cope with a surprise attack by the Communist air forces. The enemy supply lines would also be seriously interfered with by air attack. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Communists


will think hard before undertaking a general offensive when they know it will cost them dear.
The enemy build-up continues. The Communist ground forces in Korea now number over one million men—quite apart from their air forces sheltering behind the Yalu River. Seven hundred and fifty thousand of them are Chinese troops. They have some 80 divisions, although these include artillery and anti-tank divisions and divisions employed on security and coastal defence duties. The enemy can, of course, always reinforce these armies with further divisions from China.
They are also improving the equipment of their forces. They may now have as many as 600 tanks and self-propelled guns; this is about 100 more than the figure given to the House in the spring. They are making full use of their increased strength in guns and mortars. In the first week of October, the enemy sent over an average of 27,000 rounds of artillery and mortar fire each day; enemy gun fire has never been so heavy before.
Although our troops are facing a formidable enemy, it must not be thought that this increase in military strength is one-sided. Our own Forces have continued to strengthen their main lines of defence across the peninsula.
It would be right to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the South Korean troops, who have recently shown remarkable improvement in battle efficiency, coupled with a fine fighting spirit. In the early battles of the war, they were on many occasions over-run and suffered heavy casualties because of their poor equipment and lack of training. As a result, their morale was low and the positions which they held in the battle line were vulnerable.
Now it is a very different story. The South Korean divisions have been given intensive battle training and have been equipped with artillery, mortars and tanks on a similar scale to American divisions. In the recent fighting they have shown themselves just as determined as any of the other United Nations troops in the face of heavy Communist attacks.
For 15 days at the beginning of this month in the Chorwon area, the South Korean 9th Division had to face repeated heavy attacks by Chinese assaulting

troops. At first they had to give ground, although not without inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy. Then they fought back and recovered almost all the ground that was lost, and in doing so, they are believed to have inflicted nearly 10,000 casualties on the Chinese forces.
Again, at the beginning of September, the South Korean Capitol Division withstood bitter and continuous attacks on Capitol Hill and Finger Ridge, near Kumsong. The fighting lasted 14 days and ended with the South Koreans still holding these lines. Their casualties were heavy, but enemy casualties were two or three times their number.
The British Commonwealth Division has not been involved in the recent fighting. They hold all the dominating features in a vital sector of the front covering the approaches to Seoul. They have continued to develop and consolidate both their forward positions and those in the main line of defence. They have, of course, been engaged in active patrolling, which has led to one or two small clashes, but the House will be glad to know that their casualties recently have not been heavy. We all recognise the outstanding leadership of the late commander, General Cassels, in welding the various Commonwealth units into such a fine team.
The Communist air forces continue to grow and they now have some 1,200 MiG 15s compared with the 1,000 jets referred to in the statement of May last. But our United Nations pilots have recently had notable successes against the MiG 15s. When my noble Friend returned from his visit to Korea, he reported that the Americans were confident that they were well able to hold their own. The recent successes of the Sabre jets show this to be true. In August and September, our aircraft destroyed or damaged some 200 Mig 15s. Sixty were destroyed in September alone. The losses in air combat were 10 to one in our favour. The R.A.F. pilots serving with the American air forces have also had a number of MiG 15s to their credit.
Probably the most effective weapon we can use to weaken the enemy is our air power. One of the main tasks of the United Nations air forces is to cut the enemy's lines of supply by attacking targets such as railway lines and bridges. In addition, a series of attacks have been


made with the purpose of destroying enemy supply dumps and depots, communications facilities and the factories and plants on which the enemy rely for operations and for equipping their forces. To prevent supplies reaching the enemy front line troops, fighter bombers at last light create road blocks on the main and secondary roads leading down from Pyongyang to the battle area and across country to Wonsan. Then, during the night our night bombers attack the convoys of lorries caught in these congested areas. So the enemy are finding supply operations during the hours of darkness much more difficult.
It is not only in the air that the task is unremitting. The unspectacular daily work of the United Nations navies goes on without a pause. Commonwealth naval forces continue to play an active part.
Last week a naval task force carried out a mock landing below Wonsan. In advance, the guns of the American 7th Fleet and American aircraft destroyed coastal defence guns and other targets in the Wonsan area. The enemy were seen to be hurriedly digging coast defence positions. This operation brought home to them that the United Nations Forces with their naval and air strength can at any time carry out amphibious operations behind their lines. In addition, naval aircraft from the American carriers continue to cut the enemy supply routes daily along the east coast as far north as Chongjin.
The Royal Navy's main area of operations is the west coast, where with other Commonwealth naval forces they give active support to the land forces by firing on enemy troop concentrations, gun positions, and rail and road bridges. They are also regularly engaged in anti-invasion patrols. Our ships continue to play a vital role in securing our own sea lines of communication and, at the same time, preventing enemy movement by sea on the west coast.
Our carrier H.M.S. "Ocean" has so effectively cut the enemy supply route on the west coast from Pyongyang down to Chinnampo that by the end of September there was hardly one serviceable railway bridge along the entire line. It is not without interest to note that aircraft from H.M.S. "Ocean" have had their first contacts with the MiG 15s. They

have come out of these encounters most creditably having shot down one MiG and damaged others with no loss to themselves.
The United Nations casualties since the beginning of the war, including those of the South Koreans, now amount to 350,000. Fifty thousand men have been killed. Since the armistice talks began, total casualties have been about 130,000. This means that the United Nations have suffered nearly 50,000 casualties since my last statement in July.
Our United Kingdom casualties since the war began are 3,400, including almost 500 killed. The other Commonwealth countries have had about 2,000 casualties, including 370 killed. The seriousness of these casualties must never be overlooked. I am sure the House will wish to join with me in expressing our sympathy with the bereaved and with those families who are anxious about prisoners, missing or wounded.
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take every step in their power to bring the armistice talks to an early and honourable conclusion. Meanwhile, the United Nations Command, and our own Forces serving under it, are doing their utmost to maintain the position which they have won. It is our duty to give the Command all the support we can in their very difficult task.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House will extract any pleasure from the statement we have just heard. We should like to express our regret at the casualties sustained by the United Nations Forces and naturally, in particular, our regret at the casualties sustained by our own Forces. We should like also to extend sympathy, as the Parliamentary Secretary has done, to the relatives of those who have suffered.
I should like to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary who may have some little difficulty in replying, because they are very largely political, but I must put them—at least I feel that I must put them. Does he not agree that the statement which he has just read to the House would make it appear that, at any rate on the surface, we have reached a position of stalemate, and that while we in no way condone the act of aggression, it is essential that steps should be taken, perhaps through diplomatic measures not


yet decided upon or not even thought about, in order to bring this affair to an end?
May I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the truce talks have made any contribution at all to the possibility of peace, and whether in fact they have not succeeded in enabling the Communist forces to build up their strength, so that they are in a much stronger position now than they were before?
I ask him to convey to the Government the desirability, as I see it, and as I feel many of my hon. Friends will see it, of adopting some new diplomatic device in order to bring this affair to an end.

Mr. Birch: I think that the whole House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the statement discloses a position of deadlock—as, indeed, did previous statements. It is certainly true that the Communists have used the period of truce negotiations to effect a very substantial build-up. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a week ago on the subject of the truce negotiations, but I will, of course, convey the views he has expressed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir D. Savory: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what intimation he has had that these formidable weapons to which he has alluded are of Soviet origin?

Mr. Birch: I think that my hon. Friend is probably capable of guessing where the arms have come from.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether his Department has any evidence of the presence of Soviet personnel in North Korea, and if so, are they fighting forces or technical people?

Mr. Birch: There are certainly technical and advisory Russian personnel in North Korea, but I do not think that there are any actual fighting forces, though the evidence is not conclusive.

Mr. Nicholson: The Parliamentary Secretary made passing reference to our prisoners. Has he any information to give to the House, obtained through unofficial channels, about the health of our prisoners or their general welfare?

Mr. Birch: So far as we know, there is no bad health. The health of the prisoners is all right.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the report that the Americans are canvassing the United Nations for a policy which would mean, in the event of the deadlock continuing, an ultimatum being delivered to the Chinese that unless peace negotiations were satisfactorily arrived at, the war would be extended to China; and if he has heard this report, will he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not subscribe in any way whatever to that policy?

Mr. Birch: I have not heard this report, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is a question which he should put to the Foreign Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many of our casualties are National Service men, and how many of them are 20 years of age or under?

Mr. Birch: I think that if the hon. and gallant Member looks at some Written answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) earlier this week, he will find the figures.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the questions which have been asked, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will assure the House again that the course to which we are committed is an honourable truce and an honourable peace as soon as the aggression in Korea is ended, and as soon as Korea is given the peace and freedom to which, under the Charter, she has a right?

Mr. Birch: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for expressing those sentiments.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is a misuse of language to talk about peace and freedom being brought to anyone in Korea by this war? He has given us a catalogue of senseless slaughter, and the great majority of our troops in Korea would come home, if they had the chance, tomorrow. What the country wants to know is when we are going to stop this bloody war.

Mr. Birch: I do not think that there is any record of peace and freedom being brought to a country by invading Communist soldiers.

Mr. Edward Davies: Would not the Minister agree that, while we have a duty to uphold the United Nations' position, it is a terrible picture to contemplate that the situation should be resolved, as my hon. Friend would regard it, by bloody slaughter of endless millions of people? Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many of the million men the enemy have are Chinese nationals—I am told that three-quarters are Chinese nationals—and whether the Government are having regard to that fact and considering, as my right hon. Friend, the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has suggested, taking new diplomatic measures to establish what shall be the ultimate outcome when armistice conditions are considered? What is to be the position of this country so far as the recognition of China is concerned?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that there are 750,000 Chinese soldiers in North Korea. Naturally the whole matter is under continual consideration, but what we should like to get first is an armistice. That is most important.

TELEVISION TRANSMITTERS, PONTOP PIKE AND BELFAST

Mr. Gammans: With permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about television development.
The House will be glad to learn that the Government have decided to allow the B.B.C. to proceed with the setting up of stations at Pontop Pike and Belfast in time for the Coronation. As a result of some considerable ingenuity on the part of B.B.C. and Post Office engineers, temporary stations can be set up at these places at much less expenditure of capital resources than under the schemes originally planned. As hon. Members are aware, my noble Friend has already given a pledge that Pontop Pike shall have first priority and he considers that Northern Ireland should have the next priority, as it is at present without television service at all.
The B.B.C. hope to be able to provide this interim service by using mobile transmitters

and temporary aerials—these will naturally not give a service of the quality or coverage expected ultimately by the Corporation from the permanent stations. The Post Office, for its part, will do its utmost to ensure that, by the time the new stations are ready, the necessary links will be available to connect them with the existing television network. The service provided at these new stations will be continued until permanent installations can be brought into service.
The Government have carefully considered whether similar facilities could not be provided on this basis in the areas ultimately to be served by the three remaining planned stations. They regret that the technical resources of both the B.B.C. and the Post Office will be strained to the utmost in providing temporary service even at Pontop Pike and Belfast as proposed.
Hon. Members may rest assured, however, that the B.B.C. are also examining possible ways and means of improving service in fringe areas, even on a makeshift basis; but I am not in a position to say more than that today, nor am I very hopeful of the B.B.C. being able to accomplish very much in this direction.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The announcement by my hon. Friend that Northern Ireland and north-east England are to have television services before the Coronation will, I am sure, be greatly welcomed; but, on the other hand, is not he aware that the claims of north-east Scotland for the same service are just as eligible for very careful consideration, particularly as there is a transmitter available at Kirk o' Shotts, now only used as a stand-by?
I should therefore like to ask him two questions: first, whether he has, or will make, a full survey of the north-east area of Scotland, and second, in view of the fact that the B.B.C. have publicly announced their desire and ability to provide a service to north-east Scotland, whether his Department will examine the matter with the B.B.C., in view of the unique nature of the Coronation service and all that it means to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Gammans: I only regret that I cannot promise to give the same service to Aberdeen as that which has now become possible in the case of Kirk o' Shotts and Belfast, but the low power


transmitter to which the noble Lady referred, which is now at Kirk o' Shotts, is in fact to be used for the Northern Ireland transmitter.*
With regard to having another look at it, the trouble is that neither the B.B.C. nor the Post Office have the equipment already manufactured which we could use for such a purpose. But, as I have told the House, the B.B.C. are going to see to what extent makeshift arrangements can be made in what I termed the fringe areas, and I regard Aberdeen as coming within that category. I should not like to raise any hopes that anything much can be done, but I can assure the noble Lady and the House that the B.B.C. will do all they can.

Mr. Ness Edwards: While welcoming the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that the House is very pleased with this new sensitivity on the part of the new personnel at the B.B.C.? This matter has been raised many times in the House and we are glad that at last the B.B.C. have used their new initiative and engineering ingenuity to provide what was suggested to them 18 months ago.
Do I take it that there will be no difficulty, so far as the Post Office is concerned, as it has a radio link at Pontop Pike? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what link there is to be between London and Northern Ireland, whether it is a cable or a radio link? Can he also tell us what is the capital cost of this and what would be the capital cost of any boosters which may be used in the fringe areas?

Mr. Gammans: So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, it will be a radio link. So far as Pontop Pike is concerned, it will be the co-axial cable which is in that part of the world. The estimated cost of these two stations and the temporary arrangement I have mentioned is of the order of £20,000 each.

Miss Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will convey to his noble Friend and the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister in particular—[Interruption.]—the deep appreciation which the people of the North-East Coast will feel that they are to be allowed to participate in the historical and traditional ceremony which will happen next year? They will indeed

*See corrected reply, 24th Oct., 1952, cols. 153–4.

be grateful. And would my hon. Friend bear in mind, when the Opposition jeer at my reference to the Prime Minister, that it was on the intervention of the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—that this fresh examination was made particularly because of the Coronation ceremony which will take place next year?

Mr. Gammans: I think that the Cabinet, and the Government as a whole, will be grateful for compliments from anyone.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) has said, can the hon. Gentleman say how anybody can get credit for televising the Coronation when we have been informed that it is not to be televised?

Miss Ward: What a silly question.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that this decision, and his personal contribution to it, will be widely appreciated in Northern Ireland, particularly in the hospitals?

Mr. Peart: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General use his influence to reverse the decision not to televise the Coronation ceremony, which has caused great concern throughout the country and which is a stupid decision, because the whole ceremony is to be filmed? Will he use his influence to have this decision reversed? Also, will he concentrate on the fringe areas, because, in my constituency, which is in West Cumberland, not only is there not good television reception, but also bad radio reception?

Mr. Gammans: The question of televising the Coronation does not come within my competence.

Mr. Smithers: Can my hon. Friend give the House any information about the prospects of an Isle of Wight transmitter, in view of the poor reception conditions in the South Coast towns and the large concentration of people in Southampton, Portsmouth and Bournemouth?

Mr. Gammans: I hope I have made it clear—I much regret to have to say this—that there is no possibility whatever of the B.B.C. being able to give a temporary service at the other three remaining low-power stations on the same lines as I have intimated will be given to the other two.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to the question by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) regarding Aberdeen, if the other stations are to get that service, would it help in any way if the Post Office were willing to surrender for a certain time during this important ceremony the use of their landline, so that Aberdeen might have some temporary transmission?

Mr. Gammans: I do not pretend to be a technician, but I do not think that would help in any way.

Mr. Fell: Will the Minister consider further areas like East Anglia and other fringe areas, which are so close to and yet so far from the transmission of the Coronation, and whether it would be possible, by some ingenuity not only on the part of the B.B.C. and the Post Office but by industry as well to give them a service? I am sure he has already contacted industry, but will he do so again, and see whether there is anything that can be devised to help the people in those areas, including Scotland?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have given all the data with regard to the fringe areas. If by any means it is possible to give a service to those fringe areas which were mentioned with the amount of equipment which can be made available, the B.B.C. will certainly do it.

Mr. Grey: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the general appreciation that will be felt by the people in the North East of England? It has been a long time coming—long before the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) came to this House.

Miss Ward: The party opposite stopped it.

Hon. Members: You did not help it.

Mr. Grey: May I ask whether there was any political reason for the fact that this statement has been made today when it could have been made in answer to a Written Question put down last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey).

Mr. Gammans: The only reason I made it today at the first opportunity is that it is only now that the plans prepared by the B.B.C. engineers and the Post Office engineers have been completed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We have spent quite enough time on this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Edward Heath.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(SCHEMES FOR CALF SUBSIDIES.)

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out from "not," to "be," in line 37.
This Amendment and the one in line 38, to leave out "by more than three years." fulfil a promise I gave during the Committee stage to reconsider the wording of Clause 1 (5, a) in view of my acceptance of a proposal by the Opposition. The words are exactly the same as those in an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. A. J. Champion: It would be ungracious not to thank the Minister for having accepted the words which the Opposition proposed. The modesty of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was not justified, because the Minister has accepted his exact wording.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 38, leave out "by more than three years."—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Champion: We feel that we ought not to part with the Bill without thanking the Minister for his courtesy on the Committee stage and his willingness to look closely at Amendments and to accept some of them. We feel that the Bill is a much better one as the result of his willingness to accept Amendments put down by the Opposition. It is our job to assist him to improve the Bills that he introduces. We know that he has learnt a lesson by what has happened to his previous Bills, and when he introduced this Bill it was better than the one he first introduced after he became Minister.
The Minister has become very much a friend of Wales, and I am sure that Wales

will thank him for what he did in altering the wording of Clause 1 (2). He may be in some little danger as a result of that. I understand that the Prime Minister is looking for someone to accompany the Home Secretary in the management of Welsh affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had better be on his guard or he will find himself being demoted to assist the Home Secretary in looking after Wales, in which case we shall have a Yorkshireman and a Scotsman looking after Welsh affairs.
This is a short-term Measure. There is not a ha'p'orth of invention in it. It was devised by previous Administrations, and perhaps it is all the better for that. I remember the derisory laughter when the Minister in the Labour Government said that the way of nationalisation had not been perfectly blue-printed, but as an Administration the Labour Government certainly had ideas which were translated into Acts of Parliament. After all that was said by the present Ministers when they were in opposition, we note that they have fairly slavishly followed the lines which were marked out by the last Government. We can compare all that has happened since October of last year with the scope and breadth of the 1947 Act which was an entirely new departure in Governmental action for this great industry.
I notice that the Government's friends are not satisfied with what the Government are doing. Mr. J. H. Gray, National Farmers' Union delegate, speaking on 4th October of this year, said:
The Government does not seem to have a clue as to what its long-term agricultural policy should be. We know what we can produce and we shall lay our plans before the Government if they have not the guts or the brains to think up something for themselves.
That is a challenge to the present Administration to do something about this. The Government must show Mr. Gray and the N.F.U. that they have the guts and the brains to do the things which they promised when they were in opposition.
We ought to ask the Minister what he proposes to do about the slaughter of immature animals under this Bill. I cannot refer to Amendments which were moved during the Committee stage, but we feel that the Minister ought to give us some indication of how he proposes to


tackle something which he recognises to be an evil and which he thinks, and we think, he ought to stop.
When the Minister gets the beef which we hope will result from the Bill, will he have slaughtering facilities available to deal with the additional meat, and is he sure—I hope he will answer this point, for it arises out of the Bill—that meat storage facilities will be available, because much of this meat will be coming off the grass that we are hoping to get as a result of the ploughing grants, and we want to make the best use we can of it when we get it?
This is a small Bill—that is the usual story—but it is a very important one, and we hope that some useful results will flow from it. For the farming community it is an important Bill, but it is more important still for the nation in its struggle to live in the changed world that lies ahead. We wish the Bill well and we wish the Minister well in administering it.

4.17 p.m.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I congratulate the Minister on having reached the final stages in this House with his Bill. It represents a good short-term policy for beef. We all recognise that it is a short-term policy designed to meet an emergency and we hope that later on we shall have a longer-dated policy. But I believe that for a long period we shall have to rely on getting our beef from animals of the kind about which we have been talking instead of the pure beef type. We should, however, always bear in mind that the real beef type is the sort at which we should aim. Until the butchers receive real beef animals, sired by beef bulls and out of beef cows, brought up on their mothers and looked after well for the first year, we shall not get those sirloins which we, to use the poet's words "have loved and lost awhile." I only hope it is "awhile."
I am not afraid that the Bill will in any way interfere with the long-term policy when we get it. There was talk the other night about a two-year period, but the Minister stood firm on the three-year period. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out that the period might be rather longer. I do not think that a three year period is any too short. If we are to attract people to take advantage of

the Bill, they must be able to rely on the scheme lasting for a decent period. People talk about farming being a long-term policy. So it is. Anybody who has done anything out of doors will agree that it always takes longer than one expects, whether it is a soldiering scheme, farming, or anything else, and, therefore, we must allow plenty of time for it.
I congratulate the Minister on the timing of the Bill. It was very convenient to have the Second Reading in July, and for hon. Members to be able to go back to their constituencies and think about the matter and then come back here for the Committee and Report stages. They had a chance of consulting their constituents and of talking to the farmers. As I did this, two ideas pressed themselves upon me.
The first was that if the Minister insists on his officers grading some dual-purpose calves, those officers will have an awful headache before they have done. If only three out of four are taken, it may be the cause of a great deal of heartburning and difficulty. I hope that when the Orders are considered, it may be thought better to include dairy shorthorns, red polls and South Devons, the principal dual-purpose breeds, and to class them for bounty, unless of course the calves are not up to the beef or any other standard, and not only to exclude the pure milk breeds and Friesians. Practically all the Irish steers come from dual purpose milk shorthorn stock in the West of Ireland.
The other idea I had was the hope that there might be some response to this scheme from the owners of dairy herds with pure dairy cows in them. The Minister said that if a calf was sired by a beef bull, preferably by a colour-marking bull, out of a dairy cow, it would rank for grant. I hope that a certain number of owners of dairy herds will bull a proportion of their animals with beef bulls. In a good, established herd I do not think it is necessary to keep all the heifer calves you breed every year. In most good, well-established herds the farmers could afford to bull a certain number of their cows with beef bulls and thereby have a certain number of calves to come into the scheme. If they did that, there would be no loss of milk at all and from that point of view it would not matter whether the cow had been to a beef


bull or a dairy bull. There would be no loss of milk. I believe the scheme will not interfere with the production of milk. The monthly cheque is far too attractive in the present financial stringency.
I welcome the Bill and I hope to see it soon on the Statute Book. I think the production grant will, if time is given, have the effect that it is intended to have. We have had a very interesting debate, in which helpful contributions have been made from all sides of the House.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: Many details of the Bill were fully debated in the Committee stage, so I shall detain the House only for a few moments to make some general observations. I frankly state that I dislike the additional further subsidy, but in considering whether we should give a Third Reading to the Bill, we must consider the circumstances in which the Bill was first thought about.
As I understand the position, in the 1952 Price Review some £15½ million out of a total of £39 million was reserved for the initiation or extension of three specific production grants: the fertiliser subsidy, the ploughing grant and £4½ million for a new grant for steer and heifer calves to encourage meat production. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should give a great deal of thought to subsidies, reviewing the whole question as it applies to agriculture. I hope that he would, in general, come to the conclusion that it is far better to allow a price increase than to introduce again and again additional subsidies.
There is a lack of confidence as to the future in this industry, but I do not think that the introduction of additional subsidies will give to the farming community the feeling of confidence which is necessary if they are to reach their full production targets. I shall not remind the Minister of all the statements that have been made from his side of the House. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) indulged in some really plain speaking the other night. I shall take up only one point of his, as it applies to the Bill. He suggested to the Government that they were on the wrong road and should retrace their steps, and start again. I could not agree more, especially

as regards the question of granting additional subsidies to agriculture. I suggest to the Minister that he should give this matter more thought in the future.
I do not oppose the new subsidy, because it is part of the settlement with the agricultural industry at the last Price Review, but I look forward, and I am sure my hon. Friends do, too—I expect that is also true of hon. Members opposite—to an effective long-term policy emerging some time or other and being operated by the Minister. Otherwise, the industry is starting to slip down the slippery slope, and we know where that leads to. We are prepared on this side of the House to support the Minister in the efforts he may make to increase food production and to help agriculture, but we think it is time—after all, the Government have been in office for a year now—that there should emerge without further delay a long-term food production policy. If it is the right policy, the Minister will find abundant support for it on this side of the House.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend on the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. By the courtesy which he always displays in this House, we have not found this to be a controversial Measure. I welcome the passing of the Bill because I feel sure that, as a result of another Bill which was passed a few years ago, we shall have an increase in the number of calves reared in this country.
No one regretted more than I did when the last Government decided to discontinue these grants. In my opinion, it is better to give this production grant at the beginning of beef production than to increase prices at the end of it, for two reasons. The first is that it is the small man who rears most of the calves which are converted into beef. By the grant of £5 for the rearing of each calf, these farmers get a much greater incentive than if they have had it during the last two years. The second reason is that it is in the beginning of the life of any animal that the more nutritious foods are required.
The grant will enable our small farmers to rear more calves for future beef production. We can take as an


example what happened after 1947. We can look forward with confidence to having very much more beef in the country in two or three years' time than we have now. Everyone is looking forward to the day when they will get more red meat than they are getting at the present time.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am glad to see the Bill so near the Statute Book, and I believe it will be useful in my constituency. At one time black beef cattle were the mainstay of Orkney agriculture and they are still a most important part of it. In recent years, however, there has been a great increase in dairy herds in Orkney and this, although it has advantages for the country, has also presented certain problems. For instance, there has been some cross-breeding which is a not altogether desirable thing from the point of view of black cattle.
The first point I want to make particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is that when the calf subsidy is administered I hope that the rather difficult circumstances of farmers living in Orkney—particularly in the North Isles, where they have limited opportunities of buying and selling cattle—will have their difficulties taken into account. They occasionally get calves in which are not entirely pure bred. I understood from what the Minister said on Second Reading that he realised that it is a difficult problem to distinguish between beef beasts and milk beasts, and in the rather particularly difficult circumstances with which a county like Orkney has to contend I hope that consideration will be given to that point.
I would also suggest that the admirable work carried on by the representatives of his Department is continued, because it is in the interests of both breeds in Orkney that they should be kept as separate as possible. No one welcomes inter-breeding if it can be avoided.
I also want to take up the point of slaughtering raised by an hon. Member opposite. If it were possible to slaughter in the north islands of Orkney there would be a great saving on freight. I do not know whether there are sufficient beasts——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think that slaughtering arises on this Bill.

Mr. Grimond: It was mentioned by an earlier speaker——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Grimond: Then I will leave that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and say only that I welcome this Bill because it will not only help the farmer but will make for more beef in this country. Certainly, the small farmers in the North will be glad to know that their heifer beef calves will now receive encouragement as well as the steers.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I congratulate the Minister on this Bill which will be a useful short-term Measure, but there are two points which I want to make. First, I want to ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that during the next three years in which this scheme will be in operation he will watch the possible effect on milk production. This is a matter which could be of vital importance. I mentioned this point during the Committee stage and I raise it again now on Third Reading in the hope that the Minister will give a clear assurance on the subject.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister to make a clear statement at the conclusion of the passage of this Bill that it is not a gratuitous benefit for the farming community; that this Bill has been designed—I believe rightly designed—in the public interest for the production of more meat at a cheaper price; and that it is manifestly not an extra bonus thrown to the farmers.
The Minister could make a notable contribution to the good feeling, to the effort, and to the production of our farming community if he will make it perfectly clear that this scheme is designed primarily to benefit the public and that it is hoped that, given this opportunity, the farmers will follow him in making use of the opportunity offered

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I am sorry to be the odd man out on this occasion, because I do not consider that either this Bill or the Bill introduced by the Labour Government will be in the best interests of agriculture. I think that the


Minister is far too optimistic about the results which this Bill will bring about. From time to time he has mentioned the results of the 1947 Bill and is hoping that a similar result will follow from this one. Yet this scheme eliminates certain calves which the first scheme brought in. Friesian heifer calves, dairy shorthorn heifer calves, heifer calves that have a dairy standard are to be eliminated from the scope of this Bill.
In the first place, I have the greatest sympathy with the certifying officer in his task of indicating what is a dairy shorthorn calf at nine months, what is a beef shorthorn at nine months, and also certain cross-bred calves at nine months. Someone said that there would be much heartburning about it. There will be many more things much stronger than heartburning said by some of the farmers. Why should the Minister press for Friesian steer calves as against Friesian heifer calves? The Friesian heifer is quite as good a beef animal as the Friesian steer. The shorthorn heifer is quite as good a beef animal as the steer and there is no reason why these calves should not have been included in the scheme if we are going in for a policy of increasing meat.
What the Minister is relying upon is the fact that the Friesian farmer and the shorthorn farmer will in any case rear their heifers and, because they are prepared to do so, they are not to receive a subsidy. That is unfair, although I say it as one who is against all subsidies. If there is to be a subsidy then let it be a fair subsidy all round and do not penalise one as against another. As a result of those exclusions this Bill will not have the effect that the 1947 Act had upon the increase of calves. I do not believe that the increase in that case was wholly due to the Act because there are so many factors which come into the question of an increase in calves.
Another point in the Bill to which I should like to call the attention of the House is the change in the method of payment of certifying officers from a per capita basis to a salary basis. The Minister put forward some figures the other night in which he said that in Scotland, under the previous Act, the cost of certifying was 2s. per head as against about 4s. per head in England and Wales.
There are many different factors in Scotland as compared with England and Wales, one of them being that in Scotland there are large herds of beef cattle which can be certified at one visit, whereas in England and
Wales they are scattered and in very small numbers on many of the small farms. This necessitates a large number of visits. Will the certifying officers be paid on a salary plus expenses basis, or will they be paid on the basis of an inclusive salary? If the former, I do not think there will be much difference between the previous and the future cost.
I feel that the whole tendency of the Government, and of the previous Government, has been wrong. I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), who emphasised the necessity for beef cattle. What I think we ought to do is to concentrate upon and to emphasise more and more the necessity for dairy cattle. In this country, we are not in an economic position to demand the best beef. Beef wastes land when compared with dairy production, and we finally get the beef from the dairy animal. We know that it is not as good as the first-class beef, but as I have said, we cannot afford the first-class beef.
We should concentrate as much as possible on the production of the dairy animal, and so produce more and more milk for drinking purposes, for manufacture into cheese, and so on, and finally take the cows into the beef market. In this way we get the fullest possible advantage, and we do not waste land in comparison with the pure beef production at which we are at present aiming. If we want more meat, let us develop the sheep population.
The Government are pursuing a policy that was begun by the Labour Government, and I feel that in both cases the policy is wrong. I said so at the time the Labour Government introduced their proposals, and I still believe that this policy is wrong. There is only one proper policy for agriculture today, and it is up to every farmer to put it into operation: that is, 100 per cent. production from the whole of the land that he farms. That is the only policy that any Government should put forward, and every farmer can operate it for himself.
It is upon the individual work of the individual farmer, putting the whole of his capacity into that work, that the future of agriculture depends. It does not lie in the hands of the Government, and I do not feel that these measures which the Government are bringing forward will have the effect that they desire. If, however, a direct
appeal was made by the Minister, by the Government, to the farmers for 100 per cent. production, this would have a far greater result than any small measure such as the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I shall not follow in detail the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), as to do so would involve going considerably out of order on the Bill. I should, however, like to draw attention to a feature of the Bill to which more and more importance ought to be given in the public mind. If we are to give State financial encouragement of any sort to any industry, automatically it involves the individuals who are to get the assistance being subject to certain rules and regulations which are operated by officials.
The Bill, and Clause 3 in particular, contains a good deal of delegated legislation, to which the party on this
side are adamantly opposed in principle. We realise that it is not within human power to draft into a Bill all the possibilities that might arise in operating a scheme of this nature. The scheme is left pretty vague in the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose——

Major Legge-Bourke: I know what the hon. and learned Member is going to say, so he need not rise. It is not within human power to insert all these details in the Bill. Nevertheless, the farming industry, and any other industry, must face up to the fact that if they want State assistance, they have to be subject to the very considerable power of officials.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised this matter, and I supported him, in the Committee stage. I am not the least ashamed of supporting him, because consistently, for many years, his party put forward exactly the thing which he criticised, and we criticised it very forcibly. I shall continue to criticise this whenever it appears.
I still believe that the real answer to the problem, which the Bill is an attempt

to solve, is for the end price to be made sufficiently attractive to make it worth while for a farmer to fatten his stock. That is the fundamental solution. What we must face, and why the Minister has had to introduce the Bill, is that there has been a decline rather than expansion in the last year or so, very largely due to the fact that the previous Government would not face up to this vital issue.
Although this is, in my opinion, a stopgap Measure and nothing more, I still believe that in the end we shall have to make the country realise, somehow or other, that the price of food has for far too long been far below the cost of production, that the day of cheap food is over for ever, and that if we are to get the production that we need and are to avoid paying double what we should be paying by insisting upon its coming in as imports, there is only one way to do it: that is, to pay the farmer for his produce at a price which enables him to pay his agricultural workers a decent wage. That is the final solution to all this.
The only reason that I see for the Bill—I certainly support it at the moment—is that that issue has not yet been faced up to by the country. So long as the country refuses to face up to it, just so long will we have to have this added bureaucracy with every little Bill that comes along.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: As the debate proceeds, we find that many Members are critical of this Bill. I was rather interested to know that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has criticised it, because it extends a form of delegated legislation. He made the remark that his party are adamantly opposed to that kind of thing. It will be interesting to know what the hon. Member and his party do in the next Session, when we have the Supplies and Services Bill. I was not aware that in the Session which is now nearing its end his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were opposed to delegated legislation.
This little Bill is a modest but important Bill. I welcome it. I know that arguments have been advanced today by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) against our whole approach to subsidies. Even the hon.


Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), who welcomed the Bill, was uncertain about its title the other evening, and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), as I remarked in the Committee stage, has had a further recruit to his view in such an influential representative as the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames). We have thus a joint opposition to the policy which this Government are continuing and which was pursued by the previous Labour Government.
It is a good thing that the Minister and his juniors in the Government are running away from the propaganda which is sometimes irrationally advocated by many of their supporters like the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who rail so much against bureaucracy and farming from Whitehall. It was the subject matter of that wonderful leaflet which the Tory Party issued during the last General Election.
We all appreciate that the Minister is a wise man, for he recognises that past silly Tory propaganda cannot meet the present needs of agriculture and he wisely carries out many of the policies which were pursued by the previous Labour administration. That is why I welcome the Bill. It is a modest Bill, merely giving powers to bring in a scheme which will grant a calf subsidy and fulfil a promise made during the period of the Price Review. It continues the principle followed in previous Measures such as the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act and the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act.
There may be some truth in the argument of hon. Members who oppose subsidies, but I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, North when he expressed support for the Third Reading of the Bill by pointing out how the granting of this subsidy will help the small man. It injects the subsidy early into the production cycle. I believe that is important, for the many reasons advanced by the Minister on Second Reading. Small farmers today face increased costs, and there is no sign that the present Government are adopting any constructive policies to meet the increased costs which the farmers have to face. For this reason the Bill deserves support. It will help the small farmer. I hope that many small farmers in my constituency in the county of Cumberland will derive great benefits from it.
I trust, too, that the Bill will have the success which the Minister expects from
it and that there will be an annual increase of 300,000 calves. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), whom I compliment for his consistency—I know his point of view; he expressed it very firmly during the period of a Labour Government—does not believe that we shall achieve much success with this Measure. I disagree. We must achieve the target mentioned by the Minister.
It is vital that the Bill shall give encouragement to our farmers to produce more meat. It is essential from the point of view of saving dollar imports. It is also recognised on all sides of the House that we cannot expect the large supplies of imported foods we previously enjoyed. That day has gone for ever. We have to consider our financial and economic position and to recognise that we must produce to the maximum on our farms.
For that reason I welcome the Measure. If I may repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who, with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), has done so much to improve the Bill, we want an answer to this main question: Are the Government to introduce a long-term policy?
After all, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary had an interesting dinner engagement with the National Farmers' Union at the beginning of this year, and the Foreign Secretary, proposing the toast of "Agriculture," said—if I may quote from the "British Farmer":
Mr. Eden hinted at 'drastic necessary measures' and said the Minister of Agriculture would shortly be putting before his colleagues suggestions as to how the Government could help the industry to make the greatest contribution to our food supplies.
Is this a drastic Measure? Is this the only Measure which the Government will put forward? Does the Minister intend to resist his critics behind him, and those in another place like a Tory ex-Minister who said, of subsidy policy:
Putting back the subsidies is not a policy of realism. It is a policy of continuing to live in 'cloud cuckoo land'.
Is the Minister going to resist these very influential people in his party? Does he intend to announce something important or is this the only Government


Measure designed to increase food production? I hope that he will answer my hon. Friends on these points, because there is great uncertainty in the rural areas about the Govenment's intentions.

4.57 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: On listening to the debate, I feel that someone from Scotland should rise and say "Thank you" to the Government for this Measure, which is a temporary, but I think effective, expedient to stop a decline which has been taking place in the production of calves, and therefore the production of meat, in this country. I do not wish to speak for long, but I felt I should say that because I believe the Bill has the unanimous support of the Scottish farmers.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) is an enthusiast for milk. In reply to him, I would say that what we have to do in the future is to maintain a proper balance between milk and beef. As I come from a beef area, where the finest Scottish beef is produced, he will sympathise with me when I support the Bill and when I say that I cannot agree with his enthusiastic encomium for the wholesale production of milk in the whole of the country, whether milk has been traditionally produced there or not.
I have two small points to make about the Bill. I hope that these production grants will be paid to the breeder, and in order that this may be so, I hope that the payments will be made earlier under the new system of whole-time official inspectors than they were under the previous scheme. What happens in Scotland, and particularly in the upland and hill farming areas, is that the calves are usually born in March—sometimes earlier, sometimes later—and then we have the big sales of calves in the autumn, when they are sold for the feeder to feed through the winter and probably feed on to maturity.
If the subsidy is not to be paid until after nine months, then the breeder will not get the subsidy, although I admit that in the price he receives for the calf at the autumn sales he may consider that he is getting some of the subsidy. There is no certainty that he will.
Under the new system of inspection, if the calf can be punched before or at the autumn sales, it will make a very big difference in encouragement to the

breeder, because he will be able to fill up the form and get the production grant.
The only other small point I wish to make is on the question of inspection. I agree with the hon. Member for Chorley in saying that the inspectors are going to have a very difficult task in dealing with some of the more doubtful cases on grounds of breed or condition. I have no doubt there will be some angry exchanges and some angry letters written to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland because an inspector has turned down a particular calf. Indeed, a Member of Parliament may be invited to inspect the calf, which would be a quite unsuitable addition to his labours. I suggest, therefore, that while the inspector should have the general right to approve or disapprove, there should be some form of appeal from his decision.
Obviously, we cannot make it a formal, complicated legal arrangement. But, under the potato scheme, when an inspector turns down an application for a certificate, the services of a thoroughly experienced senior inspector are always available for the purpose of either confirming or rejecting the opinion of his junior. I suggest that in this case also there should be a senior inspector who could be called in if a person is dissatisfied with the decision of the junior inspector not to punch his calf.
Having made these few small points, I welcome the Bill as a temporary Measure and hope it will help to get us more red meat, which we all want.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This, at least, will be red meat that occurs elsewhere than in the imagination, and in that I think we can welcome this Bill. But I rise to give a somewhat tepid welcome to the Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) made a very valuable speech indeed, because, when one is dealing with a particular problem such as this, one tends to concentrate on the trees and not to see the wood. In this case, the wood is the problem of total production, and whatever else this Bill does it is not going to increase the total food production of this country.
Beef is a cheap crop in terms of land, but the most expensive of all crops in terms of acreage. One gets less food per


acre from beef than from anything else, and, therefore, if it has any effect at all on total production it will tend to reduce it.

Mr. Denys Bullard: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman bearing in mind the position in the arable areas? Surely, it is possible to increase the production of beef in those areas without necessarily breaking in to milk production. Is he considering the arable areas at all in what he is saying.

Mr. Paget: I should be greatly surprised if the arable areas provided the substantial increase in beef to which the Minister is looking forward. He is not looking to the arable areas, but to Scotland and to the dairy herds to produce a dual purpose.
Having said that, we must recognise that this Bill does nothing to cope with the great problem of falling agricultural production which is proceeding at an accelerated rate. The cause is expensive money. There is one thing of which we can all be certain, and that is that expensive money means low agricultural production and low farming.
Broadly speaking, our production per acre is proportionate to the amount of money used for that end in terms of labour and machinery. The amount of working capital utilised upon an acre of land is proportionate to its production, and as money is made more expensive so agricultural production is cut down. The really valuable subsidy would be that which made money cheap in the past. Nothing could give us the same production as that.
As I have said, having given a somewhat tepid congratulation to the Bill, I want to conclude with a most wholehearted congratulation of the manner in which it has been handled and conducted. It has been handled patiently by Ministers who thoroughly understood their Bill, who did not approach any suggestions with hostility, but who sought to make use of them, and did make use of them, and who, when they refused to do so, gave a thoroughly good reason for their refusal. The result is that we have not been kept up late at night. We have got through our business quickly and ably, and we have an improved Bill.
Speaking from this side of the House, I must say that I very much hope that the junior Lord of the Treasury will bring this to the attention of his Department, and that when next time Agriculture is handling a Bill, he will parade other Ministers for instruction on how to do it, because we on this side of the House are getting heartily sick of being kept up night after night by the incompetence of the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. and learned Member is now saying is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Paget: I was just putting the concluding words, because agreement at times becomes almost impossible and night after night we have been kept up by the incompetence of the Treasury Bench in handling their Measures. Surely, they should parade and see how a Bill should be handled and got through gracefully, efficiently and with dispatch.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Minister must be somewhat surprised at what has happened this afternoon. I think he must have expected, as I did, that the proceedings on the Report stage and Third Reading of his Bill would take up no more than some 15 or 30 minutes. However, we have had a lengthy discussion and many diverse points of view have been expressed.
Having listened to the earlier proceedings on the Bill, I must say that I am a little surprised that we should have had as much discussion as we have had this afternoon about the desirability of having this kind of subsidy at all. However, it is a fact that there is good reason for there being doubt about this matter. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House genuinely believe that it is better to put whatever additional money is going to be given to beef on the end price, while there are others who take the view that the beef production in this country will be more rapidly increased by giving a smaller amount of money than that put on the end price in the form of a production grant, as the Minister preferred to call it, in the early stage of the youngster's development.
I think that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House come down slightly in favour of the calf subsidy at the present time, as does the


Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be the first to agree that there is also a strong argument on the other side. However, he thinks this is the best way, and I agree with him, as do the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House.
In the circumstances we sincerely hope that the Bill is as well received in another place, to which we send it with our best wishes. We have reason to believe that the agricultural industry as a whole is in favour of the policy in the Bill, and we can assume that in consequence there will be an increase in beef production.
Before we part with the Bill, I hope the Minister will say a little about a matter we discussed on Monday of this week during the Committee stage. The Bill makes provision for certain eventualities that might arise if and when powers now exercisable by the Ministry of Food are no longer exercisable by them. I moved a new Clause which sought to deal with one of such eventualities. The Minister was not able to accept it at the time, but he expressed appreciation of the points put in the argument in favour of the new Clause, and he said he would have a look at it before the Report stage with a view to doing something then. We know that he has not been able to do anything, but I have reason to believe he is anxious to tell us why he has not been able to do anything. I hope that he will take advantage of this opportunity to say a further word on this subject.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to repeat the congratulations already offered to the Minister, to his Parliamentary Secretary and to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for the way in which they have handled the debate and for their co-operation. It is clear that the Minister has allowed us to discuss the matters in this Bill in a friendly and amicable way, and that has expedited our proceedings. We therefore congratulate all concerned in the handling of the Bill, and we wish them every success in the policy to which they are giving effect in this Bill which we trust will very quickly become law.

5.13 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Government can be well satisfied with the reception accorded to this Bill in all parts of the House and in all parts of the country.

It is true that in some parts of the country and in some parts of the House there has been only a tepid reception; and that, equally, in other parts there has been no reception for the Bill at all. This was the case with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), who has been consistent in the views he has advocated, because he made a similar speech when a calf subsidy scheme was introduced by the Government of which he was a supporter. By and large, however, there has been a favourable reception for the Bill.
The underlying issue in our debates concerns the question of whether this method of subsidy payment should begin at the earliest stage of production, or whether it ought to be left to the end price. This is not a party matter, for the views held cut across party. When we study the question and remember that there has been a definite fall in the number of calves reared, we find the majority opinion is that the Government were right to introduce this subsidy again, and by this means increase the numbers which will be reared in the years immediately ahead of us.
I should like to say another thing. In thanking the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for his approval on the way the Bill was conducted, I must correct him on his statement that production is now falling. It was certainly falling a year ago, but we have stopped that fall. Although it may not be quite in order, may I risk this one figure? As a result of the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act which was passed earlier this Session, there has been an additional increase in the cereal acreage in the United Kingdom of 267,000 acres. That is a satisfactory figure, and I hope the results from this Bill will be equally satisfactory when we come to report to the House in a year's time.
Now I should like to deal with the point put by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) about the immature slaughter of calves on which subsidy has been paid. I have given this problem very careful consideration since we discussed the new Clause moved by the Opposition during the Committee stage. I am quite satisfied


—and I hope hon. Gentlemen will accept this—after having looked at it from every angle that if such a Clause as suggested were included in this Bill it would be necessary to take such very wide powers, including a penalty Clause, that the final result would not commend itself to the House generally.
Having said that, I ought to add something more. When we were debating this point during the Committee stage we were thinking of Clause 2, and it was argued that if we could do it in Clause 2 why not do it for this other purpose as well? But I think the House will appreciate that there is a marked difference between the new Clause and Clause 2, which provided for the marking of imported calves where necessary. The Bill only allows me to make provision for a payment of subsidies to calves born in the United Kingdom. I cannot insure that that condition is observed unless I can also insure that imported calves are marked, and the powers which I take for this purpose are clearly defined in the Bill, whereas any other measures which were to deal with the immature slaughter of calves would be very vague and ill-defined. For all those reasons I decided that it would be wrong to submit a new Clause on that point.
I am satisfied, as I hope the Committee were satisfied after the speech made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that we have got the necessary powers at this moment. We hope to achieve our end, through the operations of the graders and officers of the Ministry of Food, with the additional powers to refuse animals which are under six cwt., if necessary, to deduct £5 if the producer still wants to put his beasts through the market, and the provision that immature calves at the grading centre will be held back or put on to the store market.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Minister will appreciate the additional desirability of continuing the kind of policy in this matter which is being practised at the present time. He knows as well as I do that while this scheme is still in operation, immediately this Bill becomes law he will make a scheme which will continue until October, 1955. He knows as well as anyone else that it is an extreme possibility—indeed, I think, a probability—that the powers now exercisable by the

Ministry of Food in the matter we are now discussing will have ceased to be exercisable by the Ministry of Food. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman making a second speech?

Mr. Fraser: This is a very important matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I thought the Ministry would want to deal with it. May I just ask the Minister if he will ensure that, in the making of a scheme under the Marketing Acts or any other Acts, and transferring the powers of the Ministry of Food to another authority, this matter is covered in any instrument that he will make?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will go as far as this to answer the hon. Gentleman. Nothing in this world is static, but we would try, whatever the conditions may be at any future time, to safeguard the intention behind the Amendment which was put down by the hon. Gentleman. That is our view. I do not think the House will want me to argue any further the general case in regard to subsidies or no subsidies.
I should like to refer for one moment, however, to the speech made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), who put two specific points which I should like to answer. First of all, he asked why were not Friesian steers and heifers eligible. There are really two reasons. Practically every Friesian heifer is kept primarily for milk, and if some are sold as beef, that is subsidiary, because people do not keep Friesian heifers primarily for beef. And further, this is a Bill to encourage beef production.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the salaries of the officers who are to carry out this work. They will be paid on the basis of salary plus expenses. The figures of the cost given by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage as £110,000, as compared with £296,000 which was run up one year make allowance for the anticipated expenses as well as salaries. If we are successful in keeping down the cost to the figure we anticipate, it will be very much less than was the case during the last scheme, purely because we have learned by experience.
The point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) will be very carefully noted. It will be difficult, in certain cases, certainly to assess the type of calf which is to be eligible for this subsidy, but this difficulty has been accepted and agreed to by the representatives of the farmers, who share the Government's determination that the scheme shall work, and result in a further increase in beef production.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised a point of particular interest to his constituency, and I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to tell the hon. Gentleman that it will be very carefully borne in mind. The hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), who promised the unanimous support of Scottish farmers for the Bill, raised an interesting point about the production of calves going to the breeder. It is not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the country as well, where that point is of importance. As far as the first year's scheme is concerned, it would be difficult to meet the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend but, again, the Under-Secretary asks me to assure him that it is very much in mind.
An interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who asked me to give him and the House an assurance that we will watch the effect on milk production. I have every intention of doing that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the point. I think we can get both the milk and the increase in beef.
The House is aware, as the hon. Member said, that this Bill, authorising a production grant for calves, is not an extra benefit to the farmer. It is part of the annual review price settlement for the industry; it is part of the proper price agreed between the Government and the industry to be paid for beef. In fact, by doing it this way—paying a part at an earlier date in the production cycle—it is better than if the whole was paid at the end.
In thanking the House again for the reception given to this Bill, I would say that we are confident that we shall be able to get an increase of calves reared in the United Kingdom, and I hope that hon.

Members on all sides will help its operation in their own localities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — VISITING FORCES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to naval, military and air forces of certain other countries visiting the United Kingdom and with respect to other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to the provisions of Orders under the said Act applying to such forces the law relating to the home forces;
(b) of any expenses which under the said Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys, being expenses incurred in satisfying claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of such forces or of other persons connected therewith.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VISITING FORCES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(COUNTRIES TO WHICH ACT APPLIES.)

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
and that reciprocal arrangements have been made by the Government of that country.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the principle of reciprocity shall apply in the provisions of this Bill. I do not suggest that reciprocity is an ideal solution. Indeed, I think this is a bad Bill in that it contains a great many imperfections and unnecessary limitations on the liberty of the subject, and that it goes a great deal further than is required to give effect to the agreement regarding the forces of parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. As we go through the Bill in Committee, we shall have an opportunity of showing the extent to which the provisions of this Bill are, at any rate in my view, quite unnecessary.
This Amendment is aimed merely at ensuring what I think will be generally agreed is desirable—that, if we are going to make these changes, they should only be made on the basis of full reciprocity. Even that, of course, although it may sound satisfactory, is not really very satisfactory, for this reason. If this Bill is passed, it will create exemptions from the criminal law and, to some extent the civil law, of this country, in favour of large numbers of American troops.
No one wishes to say a word in detraction from the admirable discipline which is enforced by the American forces in this country over their troops; but one has to consider that if this Bill becomes law it may in due course apply to forces of a great many other nationalities as well. The Amendment would not be worth a great deal as regards America because we are very unlikely ever to have anything like the same number of British troops in the United States as they are likely to have here.
5.30 p.m.
On the other hand, we have large British forces in other countries which are not affected in any way by this Bill, for example, Japan and Western Germany. It would be intolerable if we changed the law of this country in such a way that while we exempted foreign troops from the ordinary obligations of being subject to our criminal law, we did not at the same time take adequate steps to see that British Forces serving elsewhere had a similar kind of protection and were made amenable, in similar cases, to British courts. I would remind the Committee of what has happened in a recent notorious case in Japan. Germany is another instance.
As I understand it, we are passing this Bill in order to change our law before any other country has passed similar legislation. I do not understand why it is necessary for us to grant the exemption which this Bill will give in advance of similar alterations being made by the other countries concerned. The only object of this Amendment is to ensure that this Bill is not brought into operation in respect of any other country by Order in Council until that other country has made similar provisions in its own legislative arrangements for the benefit of our troops stationed there.
I am anxious to ensure that we shall not have the worst of all the worlds. As things stand, British troops stationed overseas are liable, I think it may be argued quite properly, to stand their trial if they commit a criminal offence in the course of their service in that country. The same rule, based upon this principle of reciprocity, should apply here, and foreign troops should not be exempted from obedience to our laws except as part of an international rule of universal application.
I think that the same principle should apply when we come to deal with the position in regard to civil offences. For example, whereas there is considerable difficulty today in a British soldier getting redress if he is injured in a foreign country, foreign personnel serving here have full rights under our civil law.
Equally, I hope we shall, at a later stage, ensure that if any British civilian suffers any injury from any foreign service personnel, he will have at least the same rights of redress and the same rights of being represented, if the offence is prosecuted, wherever it is prosecuted, as he would have if the offence were committed by a British civilian.
The point is obviously one of very great importance to all citizens of this country, because an instance of what is likely to arise under this Bill, unless we are very careful, is reported in today's "Daily Express." It is a typical example of the kind of case with which we shall have to deal.
A Mr. Wilfred Cobb, a farmer, was
arrested by American Service men on a spy-hunt exercise. He said he had never been through such a shameful experience. He was met by two American airmen who were
engaged in an exercise looking for infiltrating spies. Mr. Cobb, an honest, ordinary, law-abiding British citizen, was marched with his hands above his head to another building. He was then searched and told that if they found anything he would be shot. Rifles were pointed at his back the whole time. He was then ordered to sit on the grass, and one man guarding him was told to shoot him if he moved.
That is what can happen when we have American troops performing manœuvres in this country.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is nothing in this Bill which would prevent that.

Mr. Fletcher: That is the kind of thing which happens, and that is the kind of situation with which we are dealing in order to see what rights such a person will have under this Bill. We have to see whether persons who committed that offence will be amenable to the ordinary criminal courts of this country; whether this man will have the same kind of civil rights as he would have had if anybody else had treated him in this shameful way.
It is no mitigation of the indignity the man suffered for him to be told subsequently by officers concerned that they considered the matter a huge joke. This man suffered and is entitled to redress. As we go through this Bill, I wish to ensure that this Amendment and others which will be moved will ensure that people who are unfortunately victims, no doubt in all good faith, of American Service men engaging in manœuvres in this country, have their full rights properly protected.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I was wondering, Mr. Hopkin Morris, whether you could indicate your intention, if any, in regard to an Amendment of mine to add a new subsection (5):
(5) No such Order in Council shall take effect, or purport to take effect, unless and until the Minister of Defence or other appropriate Minister has certified that satisfactory reciprocal arrangements have been made with the Government of the designated country.
That is designed to meet the same kind of point. If it is not your intention to call it, I would respectfully ask leave to speak now, and even if it is your intention to call it, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the two Amendments were considered together.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I agree, if that meets with the wish of the Committee. I did not intend to call the hon. Member's Amendment, but it can be discussed with the Amendment that is before the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: There will be no dispute, I think, in principle about the object which the Amendment is intended to serve. I do not profess to speak for anybody but myself, and certainly not for anybody on the other side of the Committee, but I should have thought that, in principle, the Government would be in favour of it also.
I am sure that it would never be their intention to enact alterations in our law in this direction unless it were on the basis of reciprocity with the other countries concerned. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) that even if it were fully reciprocal, I do not know that I should like the Bill very much better, but I think everybody on all sides of the Committe is agreed on the assumption that if we are to have any or all of these arrangements, they are tolerable, if at all, only on the basis that they are reciprocal.
The difficulty has been to know how to make them reciprocal. I find a difficulty in my hon. Friend's Amendment. It seems to me to be that if we are to adopt the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, we shall be saying to other countries with whom we make arrangements of this kind, "You do it first." That is what the Amendment means. Until they have already done it, we shall not do it. And if they take exactly the same view and say, "No, we will not do it first, you do it first," then indeed no effect would be given to the arrangements at all. However satisfactory that might be to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East and myself, others might not think it satisfactory.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely this is quite a simple arrangement. In order to bring this N.A.T.O. arrangement into operation, there has to be a separate agreement with each participant. That separate agreement should provide that this will be brought into operation simultaneously in both countries. There is no difficulty about that.

Mr. Silverman: I entirely agree. That is the object which all of us have in mind, but—and I may be quite wrong—what I fear about this arrangement is that it does not bring these things into operation simultaneously but insists upon priority by the other party to the arrangements. If that is the true meaning, I would not expect the other party to accept it. I should prefer to do this by incorporating in the Bill, a subsection (5) to this Clause to say:
No such Order in Council"—
that is, the Order in Council which designates a particular country and


applies these arrangements to that designated country—
shall take effect, … until the Minister of Defence or other appropriate Minister has certified that satisfactory reciprocal arrangements have been made with the Government of the designated country.
The difference between the two proposals is that whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, would like to put that in at this stage into this Clause, I say that that might create a difficulty by seeming to demand priority from the other side, whereas if we put exactly the same provisions into the Order in Council then we can make the Order in Council but leave it inoperative until the Minister is in a position so to certify.
Subject to argument, I think that that carries out the object which my hon. Friend has in mind in a way which imposes no hardship and creates no difficulty in regard to any other contracting party but does insure that any amendment of the law which we ourselves make shall remain dormant, as it were, until the Minister is able to certify that reciprocal arrangements have been made. I do not know whether either of these proposals commend themselves to the Government. I notice that there is no Amendment down on behalf of the Government. I should have thought that, this being a matter in which everybody is agreed in principle, it might be possible to work out some agreed machinery satisfactory to all of us to secure that end.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I should like to express my agreement with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I conceive that it is desired generally in the Committee that reciprocity should take effect, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) indicated that it was a most desirable thing that the granting of these arrangements by the sending and receiving countries should take effect simultaneously.
I must confess that it seems to me that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) does not provide, or indeed make it possible, for this concession to take effect simultaneously, because

the creation of the privilege in this country only takes effect after arrangements have been made by the sending country. The expression "have been" in the Amendment seems to me inconsistent with "simultaneously."

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Paget: Surely the answer is that we make the arrangements and give legislative sanction to what we grant, but those arrangements may provide for their being in operation on a certain date. We want to be satisfied that the arrangements have been made, and then they come into force on the same date. I think that that covers it.

Mr. Irvine: I see the point which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, but I still feel that of the two methods proposed on the Order Paper for meeting this difficulty, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne is the more satisfactory because it is less open to doubt upon the point. I should have thought that it was manifestly easier to make the procedure by way of the Order in Council in this country and whatever is the procedure in the sending country coinciding. That is very much easier than to attempt to establish the principle of simultaneous action in the body of the Bill. On the principle of reciprocity, I imagine that there is very general agreement, and I hope that we shall hear from the Government that, in particular, the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne will receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. John Strachey: I hope that the Home Secretary will give us some form of assurance on this matter of reciprocity, because I think that perhaps it is the one point with which we are more concerned than almost any other, or as much as any other, in this Bill. I do not pretend to be any kind of legal authority to be able to say how it ought to be done, but I should have thought that there were obvious ways in which it could be done.
As I understand it, this matter is fairly complicated because not only does the Bill need a Special Order in Council to become operative in respect of any particular country—that is under earlier Clauses—but also, under Clause 19 (2), it does not come into effect at all until an


Order in Council is made; but, as I understand it, if such an Order in Council is made under Clause 19 (2), bringing the Bill into operation in respect of any country, European or N.A.T.O., then automatically and ipso facto it comes into operation in respect of the United States, which is perhaps the important example here because of the numbers of American troops in this country. For at the moment the Bill comes into operation it replaces the 1942 Act which at present regulates the status of American troops in this country.
What concerns me on this issue of reciprocity is what stage the American Government have reached in this matter. It is important that Her Majesty's Government should tell us, and they have not done so yet. They did not say on Second Reading whether the American Government are, at any rate, moving in step with us. As I understood from discussions in another place, some legislation was put before Congress on this subject, but so far as I know—and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that legislation was not enacted in the last Congress, and Congress rose without doing anything about it at all.
I think that it is fair to say that we all know that what a new Congress will do must be a matter of speculation. A new Congress is not even elected yet. So we do seem to be moving a good hit ahead. I do not think that matters yet, because the Bill does not become operative when it goes on the Statute Book. It needs an Order in Council to bring it into operation. We should like to be assured that it will not come into operation in respect of any country—because that involves the United States—until the United States, I do not say have completed, but at least are well on the way to completing, this process.
I know that there is an argument against that. It is worth noting. It might be argued that it would be a good thing for us to bring this Bill into operation vis-à-vis the United States quite unilaterally and without regard to anything which the United States Government were doing—because it is the case that as compared with the existing state of things under the 1942 Act, this Bill would mean a very considerable improvement in our position. I do not deny that for a moment. Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake to

do that. I think that it is a mistake to make that relatively small improvement in the present position and to run ahead in the mere hope that the American Congress will take parallel action.
I should have thought that it would be better, on the whole, to let the 1942 Act run on a bit longer. It has been in operation now for 10 years and it would not matter if it were kept in operation a few months longer, and this Bill will not be brought into operation until and unless we were assured that the American Congress and other member States of N.A.T.O. were moving in step with us.
Onerous and unpleasant as some of the provisions of the Bill are—as we all felt on Second Reading—they become quite intolerable unless they are fully reciprocated, and I cannot see the people of this country supporting a permanent Statute. The 1942 Act was never meant to be permanent, and yet here we are doing something for good—or for a long period—and I very much dislike the idea of running ahead of the action which is taken by other Governments.
That is not a reason against the passing of the Bill, because it can be suspended; in fact, it is suspended until an Order in Council is brought in. But there is a reason for not passing the Bill unless we have really adequate assurances that the Government does not mean to bring it into operation vis-à-vis any other State—and in particular America—until they have that assurance.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that under my Amendment we could have the Bill now without involving ourselves in any legislation or any alteration of the law until reciprocal arrangements have been made? What my Amendment requires is that when the Order in Council—which is in any case necessary—comes to be drafted, it shall not provide a date on which it comes into effect until the arrangement with regard to a particular country has been made.

Mr. Strachey: That undoubtedly ties the Government to doing what I am suggesting here, but if the Government in some way or another will give us assurances that they are going to do that, that is the main thing for which we on this side of the Committee are asking.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I have great sympathy with the point of view which has expressed itself in the speeches which the Committee have heard. Therefore, I propose to deal with the substance of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will appreciate that there is a technical difficulty in the method of the framing of his Amendment, as it might be read as referring to reciprocal arrangements of defence. I say that with regard to the technical position, but I am not going to deal with the Amendment on any such short view. I want to deal with the subject because it is one of great importance.
I will deal with another preliminary point as to the actual wording, and that is the basis of the Amendment that reciprocal arrangements have been made. I find this difficult to accept. I think it was the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) who pointed out that one comes to the old metaphysical abstraction, what is the complete identity of time? Apart from that, there is the broader point which has some political significance and which is expressed in the old quatrain with which you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, are very familiar:
Lord Chatham with his sword undrawn,
Kept waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
Sir Richard, eager to be at 'em,
Kept waiting, too—for whom?—Lord Chatham.
That is the practical point which I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had in mind in introducing the time factor.
The important point is that we should be sure that the Government are satisfied that there will be reciprocal arrangements and I hope that, on consideration, the Committee will be satisfied with the undertaking that I am proposing to give. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said that he hoped there would be some assurance and, if I may say so with respect, that is entirely right. I am in a position to give an undertaking to the effect that Her Majesty's Government will, subject to the exemption which I shall mention in a moment, not apply the Measure to any foreign country until they are satisfied that the country can guarantee to offer reciprocal treatment to British Forces visiting its territory.
The exemption relates to the United States of America. The point has been adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I explain at a little greater length the difficulty that arises. There is the question of fact that was pointed out by the hon. Member for Islington, East, that there is not likely to be any factual case for reciprocity in that the number of our troops that would be stationed in the United States is not likely to be large. I entirely agree.
But the matter goes rather deeper than that. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, when the Measure comes into force, the Allied Forces Act, 1940, and the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, will immediately be repealed unless a highly artificial course is taken and Clause 18 is brought into operation only in part.
Therefore, I should like the Committee to consider broadly the alternative which seems to Her Majesty's Government to be preferable, namely, to apply the provisions of the Bill to the United States of America. The question which the Committee will have in mind in that regard is that of evaluating the gain to us by so doing. At the moment I would remind the Committee that the United States has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to her forces and the jurisdiction of our own courts is completely ousted.
6.0 p.m.
That was the position about which I
and those hon. Members whose memories are sufficiently long can remember the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne making an emphatic protest in 1941 or 1942 when the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill was before the House. Whatever defects hon. Members may see in the present Bill, it is a great advance on that position and I have no doubt that the previous Government, when negotiating this agreement, had that point in mind and also had in mind the feelings expressed by the hon. Member. That is why the position has been changed from one of exclusive jurisdiction for the United States forces to one of concurrent jurisdiction with the primary rights being distributed as I explained on Second Reading. It is a great improvement from that aspect that in all except three excluded cases the primary jurisdiction should be that of this country.
I think it would be unfortunate if we were not to take advantage of that position. It is quite right, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that Canada has actually passed the legislation, so that is obviously desirable that we should bring this Bill into operation. In the case of France, as many hon. Members will appreciate, ratification immediately makes the provisions of the Treaty binding under French law. Therefore, if we bring it in in relation to France, it will be necessary for this portion to come into operation. I think that would be to the benefit of the operation and administration of the law and also to the benefit of the standpoint which hon. Members opposite have advanced.
The point has been put forward: what about the position of the United States? The Government contemplate that if the course is taken of applying the Visiting Forces Act to the United States forces, even although at the time of application the United States Government were not in a position to give reciprocity, the balance would be right. In addition, we should be in this position: it would involve terminating the present arrangement with the United States of America whereby their visiting forces exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of which I have spoken. We think this could and should be done by giving the United States Government reasonable notice of our intention.
With regard to all other countries, I give the undertaking fully. As I have said, the Government will not apply the Act to any foreign country until they are satisfied that that country can guarantee to afford reciprocal treatment. In regard to the United States, after a very careful consideration of the points which have been advanced, we believe that the balance of advantage to our people and to the administration of justice in our country is in applying the Act and in that way getting the better position which the late Government were able to negotiate in the agreement which forms the basis of this Bill.
I am not advising the Committee not to accept the Amendment on any technical ground. That is because I want to meet it, although there are technical difficulties. But I am asking the Committee to accept this undertaking as sufficient to meet the feeling which is in all our minds and also, on reflection, to

accept the view that it would be better to make the advances which I suggest. I therefore ask the hon. Member in those circumstances not to press this Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In his undertaking with regard to foreign countries, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred specifically to Canada. Could he tell us whether he is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements in fact exist in regard to the other Commonwealth countries?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The position, as I understand it, is that they have not passed legislation at the present time as Canada has passed it, but they did pass legislation corresponding to our 1933 Act, which of course dealt with Commonwealth countries. Under that legislation we are in a position that broadly—I am not going to guarantee it as to details—reciprocal treatment is being given to our forces and has been given since about the time of the 1933 Act.

Mr. S. Silverman: I regret to say that for my part I cannot accept the undertaking the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. It seems to me that it is an undertaking with no substance of any kind in it. There are no visiting forces in this country at the moment except United States forces. No one contemplates that in the near future there will be any visiting forces in this country except United States forces. There may possibly be some, but it is not immediately in contemplation and the practical politics of the matter are that these arrangements and this Bill to carry them out are purely for the United States visiting forces in this country.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying to us is, "I will give you the undertaking about reciprocity which you require with regard to all the countries which have no visiting forces and are not likely to have visiting forces here in the foreseeable future, but I will not give you the undertaking you want in regard to the only country which has visiting forces here now and which is likely to have visiting forces here for some time." That means that there is no practical undertaking about reciprocity at all.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is, "Reciprocity with everybody else but not reciprocity with the only country—namely, the United States


of America—which these arrangements actually affect as a matter of practical politics at the moment," What does he offer as a reason for that? He says, "With regard to the United States of America, we do not need reciprocity." If we do not need reciprocity, there is no reason to pay all this lip-service to the principle of reciprocity. But why do we not need it; why are we prepared to give concessions of this kind except on a reciprocal basis?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very sorry if I have conveyed a wrong impression. I did not mean we should never get reciprocity; I meant that we should get it as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right in what he said. The matter came before the Senate—I know I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the Senate comes into all treaty-making matters, apart from legislation—but it was not dealt with and cannot be dealt with until Congress sits again.
The point I was putting—I am sure the hon. Member will take it from me that it was what I intended to put—was that we need not do this at once, but, of course, we should continue to seek reciprocity from the United States and, so far as I know, we shall get it when Congress meets again.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. It does clear up what to my mind was an ambiguity. It may be my fault. I take it that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying is, "We are not saying at all that there should not be reciprocity in this matter between ourselves and the United States of America. Everything we have said about the correctness of the principle of reciprocity applies as much to the United States of America as to any other country." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that, then I am afraid I do not see why he should not include that country in the undertaking which he gave.
I understand that his real difficulty now is not a difficulty of principle—the principle is accepted—but that it is a time difficulty. He is saying that if we make that undertaking apply to the United States, those arrangements will not come into force until they are ready

and it is unlikely that they will be ready until January or after, and that is the practical point. Then, I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let us wait. It is not long to wait, and if the United States want these arrangements, as I am sure they do, then I do not see why we should abandon the capacity we have for saying to them "Come along; do your part; do your share"—as we should be abandoning it if we had already implemented the arrangement ourselves.
It may well be that reciprocity is not so popular in the United States as it is in the United Kingdom. I do not know. But supposing it were a little less popular, then if we implement the arrangement now we have absolutely no means whatever of securing an early legislative act in the United States of America to apply the same provisions there. If we do not do it now, then the new Congress will be faced with it as an immediate problem which it will have to solve. If we do it now, then the new Congress may face a great many matters which it may quite reasonably regard as having priority over this one.
What follows if we wait? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Oh, well, we shall have the worse position of the 1942 Act." I hope he will enlighten me. Everybody seems to proceed upon the assumption that the 1942 Act is still valid. I should like to know why it is valid. The 1942 Act was a war-time Act. I have not got it in front of me, but I seem to remember that it was passed for the duration of the war. If I am right about that, then I think we ought to bear in mind that the war is over, and not merely that it has been over for seven years but that 12 or 18 months ago we actually proclaimed the end of the state of war with Germany, and that we have quite recently ratified a treaty of peace with Japan. But if the 1942 Act was, as I seem to remember, valid and operative for the duration of the war, the war is over and it is not valid now. Am I wrong?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that what he had in mind was an expression of opinion that it probably would last only a short time after the war. But it is not in the Act.

Mr. Silverman: I have not the Act here to look it up, and I should not dream


of detaining the Committee while I did so, but if it is not in the Act, I take it that it has always the intention. I cannot imagine that the House of Commons in 1942 would have passed an Act, which it passed with some reluctance even then, unless it was assured that it was a war-time Measure and nothing but a war-time Measure. It is seven years afterwards, and if the validity of it has not been brought to an end with the cessation of hostilities and the ratification of a treaty of peace and the proclamation of the end of the war with Germany, then I think we ought to terminate it now. There is no reason whatever why people on our soil should not be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts, except by reciprocal arrangement.

The Chairman: I do not think that that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid I do not follow. It has been a large part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that one reason why we could not wait for reciprocity in the case of the United States of America is that it does not pay us to do so, and that it does not pay us to do so because if we do not pass this Bill we shall have the 1942 Act. What I am saying is that we can get out of that difficulty by not having the 1942 Act. I am dealing expressly and explicitly with the argument he put forward.

6.15 p.m.

The Chairman: I may, perhaps, be wrong, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the repealing of the 1942 Act.

Mr. Silverman: Yes.

The Chairman: We cannot do that on this Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I agree that this is not the time to answer that, though I think it should be repealed, but what I am saying is that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any difficulty—which he said he was in—he can get out of that difficulty, not by accepting this Measure, but by repealing that one, which is the method I should prefer. I am dealing expressly with the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made.
I am not of the opinion that this is so much better a Measure than the 1942 Act. It is better in some respects, but

in a great many respects it is not. It extends to classes not covered by the 1942 Act. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he accepts the principle of reciprocity in the case of the United States of America, as he assures us he does—and I am sure he does—then there is nothing in the argument he put forward which dispenses with reciprocity in that case. Let us have reciprocity, and not go on with legislation until we do.
I am not saying we should not pass the Bill. Pass it by all means. I am not saying we should not give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government the power to designate the United States of America or any other country to which the Measure shall apply at such time and in such degree as the Government of the day think proper. What I am saying is that if they accept the principle of reciprocity, let it apply to the United States as it applies to every other country.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I hope that the Home Secretary will yield to some of the arguments that have been put. I do not want to put it offensively, but I would say to him, "Stand up to the United States of America in this matter." One of the troubles we have had is that we have often sat back on the ground that there would be subsequent reciprocity, and there has not been reciprocity at all. One example of that was our concession in regard to the effects of our policy for visas for United States citizens on the understanding, as I remember the late Mr. Ernest Bevin saying in the House at that time, that there was to be some reciprocity and that this was to be part of a general relaxation of visas. Far from there being any relaxation of visas, we have had all sorts of people, like Mr. Graham Greene and people of that sort, prevented from going into the United States.
As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the position at present is that the treaty upon which this Bill is based
has not yet been ratified by the Senate. But even when the treaty is ratified, what undertaking have we that any legislation in the United States will be introduced to implement it, or can be under the United States constitution?
I should like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he has some advice from the Government's


no doubt able advisers in Washington that any such legislation giving equivalent powers can in fact be introduced in the United States; because otherwise it is nonsense for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come forward and talk of reciprocity—unless he is certain that such legislation can in fact, under the United States constitution, be introduced. That is the first question that I hope he will answer for us. Has he an assurance that under the American constitution similar legislation to this being introduced here can in fact be introduced in America without amendment of the constitution?
That is a point of some importance, because I think it should be made clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that any alliance which takes place between great Powers can only be—I hope, at any rate, so far as this great Power is concerned—on the basis of equality, and it is quite impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come here and to ask, in this matter or in other matters, that we should concede in this country things which our allies are unprepared to concede to us in their countries. I do not think that my hon. Friends would stand for an arrangement by which we make concessions in our own country to our allies in a common cause when our allies are not prepared so to do on their side.
In principle, it does not matter whether this is something which affects one, one hundred or one thousand British troops in the United States. What we want to know, and what this Committee is entitled to know, is not whether the United States are going to ratify this treaty, but whether, when they have ratified it, it is possible for them to introduce legislation to implement it in their country. If that is possible, what are the plans for the introduction of that legislation? Have they received the support of the present party in power? Have they received the support of the party which may be in power in January? Is there any bipartisan policy on this question?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to an article in the "Daily Express," and I will only just refer once again to the point there made. One gets cases of this sort where British people are treated in what appears on the surface—there may

be all sort of explanations—to be a harsh and arbitrary way and have no redress. If people are to be told they must put up with this, we must also be able to say to them, "Don't worry. They have conceded to us the right to do exactly those things in their country. If by some change in the law the person who has treated you in this way cannot be prosecuted, it is exactly the same for us in their country. This is an arrangement we have made, which is equal on either side."
I hope the Home Secretary will now be able to tell us, yes or no, whether under the American constitution such legislation giving jurisdiction over foreign subjects can be enacted in the United States, because otherwise any promise to get reciprocity is absolute nonsense. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come to the Committee equipped with that information before giving a promise that he will get reciprocity. Secondly, will he tell us what promises from the present American Administration and from the other parties have been given that legislation will be introduced to implement this agreement if and when it is ratified by the Senate?

Mr. Paget: This debate has been of great value if only because it has enabled us to find out that apparently the Government are putting forward these proposals on the basis that they expect to receive reciprocity from the United States. That is what I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us, that he expected it. He has now been undeceived, because whatever else is certain it is that he will not get reciprocity from the United States. The United States Government are in no position to grant it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not said that for a moment.

Mr. Paget: Then I am afraid I must have been very dense when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking, because that is what I understood him to say. He told us about Lord Chatham and Sir Richard Strachan, and about the difficulty of each waiting for the other. He said that because of the 1942 Act it was our intention to introduce this first, and then I understood him to say, "because the Americans are going to


make reciprocal arrangements. It is just a question of time." Is that not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes.

Mr. Paget: Then we are at one, and it is extremely important that he should now realise that the Americans are going to do nothing of the sort, and that they cannot do anything of the sort. That is one of the difficulties of American law and the American constitution. The treaty will become binding as between Government and Government when it has been ratified by the United States Senate, but the fact that it is ratified as between Government and Government does not make it binding upon any individual citizen; nor does it take away from the individual citizen the rights which every American citizen enjoys under the constitution.
Those rights are rights which are quite inconsistent with, for instance, Clause 3 of this Bill. There is the right of every American to take his complaint, whether it be a criminal or civil complaint, to the courts of the United States, and no governmental treaty can deprive the individual American of that. We are depriving our individual citizens of that right by this Bill. The individual American citizen cannot be deprived of that right save by an amendment of the constitution, so that, if the Home Secretary really is under the impression that he has been promised reciprocity, we should like to know who has given him an undertaking to introduced an amendment to the American constitution and when that amendment is going to be brought forward, because within their existing constitution they cannot grant reciprocity here.

Mr. George Wigg: I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is right or not, but I am certain of one thing, and that is that if the United States are faced with having Armed Forces of Her Majesty serving in that country and do not quickly pass a Measure similar to this, they will be extremely stupid. In the same way, I think that the present Government are wise to try to get a Measure like this on the Statute Book. Clearly, if a body of foreign troops is serving in this country

it is far better that they should serve under their own code of discipline than be amenable to the courts of this country.
I can understand that in certain circumstances an aggrieved British subject may feel that it would be far better if an offending American soldier were hauled before the British courts. Suppose a brawl takes place on a Saturday night, a British subject hits an American and the American hits the British subject. If the British subject is taken before the magistrate and fined, or perhaps even sent to prison, the thought may occur to him, "What has happened to the American?"
Under our own code, for a British
soldier to fight a citizen of a foreign country in which he happens to serve is a much more serious offence under the military code than under the civil code. Obviously an American commander, just like a British commander who has British troops serving in America, is very concerned about the reputation of the troops under his command and the maintenance of discipline. It would not be much use unless he had effective control, and, quite apart from the legal arguments and these hair-splitting questions about the constitution of the United States, it is of paramount importance that American commanders should have control of their forces here.
I naturally hope very much that the Home Secretary will be able to get a reciprocal arrangement, but in saying that I am really only giving vent to that rather adolescent emotional feeling that if we give the Americans something they ought to give us something back. However, I am not at all sure that it works quite like that. We want a businesslike arrangement which takes account of legitimate grievances which British subjects may suffer as a result of the American troops being here.
6.30 p.m.
For example, what happens if a British subject has the misfortune to be run down by a jeep? To whom does he look for recompense? Does he look to the American forces or to the Minister of Defence? The point which we are really discussing is who is to control the forces, and it seems to me that if we push the argument of my hon. and learned Friend too far, we find ourselves faced with his position—are they to


be effectively controlled by the American commander or by the chairman of the bench of magistrates in the area in which they are serving? I prefer that effective control shall rest in the hands of the American commander.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know how much time the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has had to read the provisions of this Bill, but if he has had the time to do so, he will no doubt realise that the provisions of the Bill go a very long way beyond what is necessary merely to retain for the commander of an American unit disciplinary control over the men in that unit, and it is for that reason that we are interested in reciprocity.

Mr. Wigg: I am dealing with the Amendment under discussion. Later on, as the Committee proceeds, we shall discuss other matters.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend does not understand the position. This Amendment says, not whether a number of things which he thinks
are necessary shall come into force now, but whether the whole thing shall come into force now. It is for that reason that we are asking for reciprocity. It is no good my hon. Friend saying that we do not need reciprocity for one of the things done by the Bill and, therefore, do not let us bother about any of the others.

Mr. Wigg: Of course we need a reciprocal agreement, if only to satisfy the feelings of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Silverman: I have no feelings.

Mr. Wigg: Apart from that, we have to accept that relations with the United States and other parts of the world are matters only to be handled with great care and wisdom. People feel strongly about these things, especially when our young ladies walk out with the Americans, and so on. I served with the American troops, and I know the kind of things that result. Ultimately what is resolved in this Bill is going to control the American forces. If this Bill is not passed, the American soldier is amenable to the British courts.

Mr. Silverman: No, he is not.

Mr. Strachey: I should like to put one point to my hon. Friend the Member for

Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and one question to
the Home Secretary. I think that my hon. Friend was under a misapprehension in thinking that great difficulties, which he very rightly mentioned, would arise if we did not pass this Bill, or if the Government did not bring it into immediate effect. All that happens is that the 1942 Act goes on, which leaves the position as it is, so I think that all the fears which he apprehends are not really relevant.

Mr. Wigg: I was dealing with the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. Silverman: It was precisely the same point.

Mr. Wigg: If my hon. Friend were faced with the choice, what he would prefer to do is to repeal the 1942 Act.

Mr. Silverman: We have not done that yet.

Mr. Wigg: If we did repeal the 1942 Act, the American commander would have no control.

Mr. Strachey: I want to ask the Home Secretary one point which I think is important and relevant. When we have been speaking of American legislation which was brought before Congress but not passed, I thought it was roughly corresponding with this. Now I am told by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that it was not legislation at all in this sense, but the mere ratification of the agreement. It would be true that if it were merely that, it would be, so far as any reciprocity is concerned, completely empty. We are saying that we cannot ratify until we have brought our legislation into a position which enables us to ratify. If the Americans are considering ratification without similar legislation, ratification in itself would give us no reciprocity.
I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) when he suggests that this is a mere matter of prestige. After all, it is not the case that we can never have British troops stationed in America. I can very easily imagine squadrons of the R.A.F. being stationed in America and on visits to America. They might be fairly small in number, but the jurisdiction of the courts over them would be a thoroughly practical and important matter.
We do not imagine that they will ever be there in the same numbers as are the American troops here, but nevertheless I think that it would be an intolerable position for the people of this country if all these sweeping provisions were made, and made permanently in respect of American troops, and nothing of a similar character were done in the United States. I think that we must have a factual statement from the Government as to what is the position in regard to the United States.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall be very glad to do that. What I intended to say is that, of course, it is well known that, so far as treaties are concerned, they have to come before the Senate, but the practice is that the legislation giving effect to the treaty and bringing it into effect is produced and was, as I understand it, before Congress at the same time. I am sorry if I have misled the right hon. Gentleman. That is what I am told. It was not only a question of the Treaty-making, but also a question of the legislation.

Mr. Paget: Surely, if a Bill is before Congress, the Foreign Office will have a copy of it. Cannot we see it?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree.

Mr. John McKay: I have listened intently to the legal arguments on this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the discussion has revealed something which we want in the Bill itself. There is no question that one of the things which we desire at the moment is that we shall be a unit of our own, particularly when dealing with America, and that we shall uphold the position that in so far as we do anything for America, they, to some extent, shall do a similar thing for our people. I think that is the essence of the discussion.
I do not pretend to know all the legalities, or even what the 1942 Act says, because I do not think it is necessary to know that, but I think this is an important point here and that we should apply our ordinary intelligence to it. When I hear the nonsense which is talked by some celebrities in the legal profession and when there are such great differences of opinion between the lawyers in the Committee I come to the conclusion that this is a subject upon which the ordinary

man can use his brains to reach a solution.
What is the bone of contention? There is, admittedly, a weakness in the law at present and the question arises whether, in endeavouring to amend the law, we should try to get the same kind of treatment for our own people. The Government say that they have had talks with America and have every hope of getting a reciprocal agreement, but we all know that the best kind of agreement is a written agreement and not a promise.
The effect of the Amendment is to say that, while we are prepared to meet the Americans, we must have the same kind of treatment for our own people. The Amendment says that there must be the qualification that the Bill will only operate in this country when America ratifies similar provisions. Surely that is logical. It represents loyalty to our own people. Surely even a legal expert of the highest eminence in his profession should be able to say that that is logical and sensible.
If that is so, are we arguing logically and sensibly? What possible objection can the Government have to the words that we wish to have inserted? There can be no argument at all about them. In all that he has said the Home Secretary has not indicated that there is anything extremely objectionable about the Amendment. He has asked us not to be critical, but to ask the other side to do exactly the same as we are doing is not criticism. The Government should weigh up the matter very carefully. The Conservative Party is supposed to be a very patriotic party. The Labour Party is also a patriotic party. We stand for our country's equality and for the guarding of the rights of our people. The Bill introduces a factor which exemplifies our attitude.

Mr. John Freeman: For once the Home Secretary has treated the Committee with less than the high standard of courtesy that we expect from him. My hon. Friends have put the general case for reciprocity. The Home Secretary has said, "I quite agree, and I propose to accept all you are asking for in the way of reciprocity straight away in the case of all countries except the United States. In the case of the United States I want to make an exception and I justify that exception not because I do not desire


or expect reciprocity from the United States, but because if we do not implement the Bill in respect of the United States as quickly as possible we shall be left with the 1942 Act which, in many ways, is less satisfactory than the Bill. Therefore, I want to take time by the forelock and leave the question of reciprocity with the United States so that we may gain the benefits of the Bill as quickly as possible." Surely that is an admission by the Home Secretary that he expects, desires and intends to get reciprocity from the United States.
We have a lot of legal talent in the Committee. One would have expected the briefing on the Government side to have been good. However, some of my hon. and learned Friends have raised two points which
are absolutely vital to the Home Secretary's argument and the points have not been clarified. The first is whether Congress has examined any legislation ratifying the original agreement, and the second is whether under the United States constitution such legislation is possible even if the Administration wished to introduce it. It seems almost inconceivable that the Home Secretary has not yet clarified those points.
No one who knows the Home Secretary would suggest for a moment that he made his original remarks with any desire to deceive the Committee or in anything other than good faith, but it shows a disregard of facts that he can base a complete argument, which he invites my hon. Friends to accept, on points about which he will not tell us or which he has not clarified. Is legislation of this kind against the constitution of the United States? Even the most learned of my hon. Friends can scarcely be expected to answer that with authority at a moment's notice, but how can the Home Secretary put to the Committee the argument which he has advanced unless he is apprised of the point and prepared to give an assurance on it? Is Congress, interrupted by the Presidential elections in its consideration of the agreement, considering legislation which would bring the agreement into effect?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did not say that I was informed that it was both, not only the agreement but also the legislation.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Freeman: The Home Secretary is taking the words out of my mouth. What he said was hedged about with several qualifications. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, if legislation is
being considered at the moment by Congress it is presumably in print and a copy will be available. The American Embassy will certainly have a copy and will make it available, as they do for any journalist who asks for a Congressional document of that kind.
In view of the nature and tone of the Home Secretary's answer, I could not, speaking for myself, possibly agree to support the Clause as it stands until such legislation has been made available to us in the Library or by some other means, so that we can see exactly what it is we are being asked to do. If I have done the Home Secretary an injustice in speaking so warmly about this, it was because he chose to base the whole of his argument on two points which he has not bothered to check.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The Home Secretary has asked us to withdraw the Amendment and accept an undertaking which he has given. I am sure he will now realise that it is impossible for us to accept the undertaking which he has given or to withdraw the Amendment. I am very doubtful whether it is possible usefully to ask the Committee, in the absence of further information, to proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
With the Amendment we sought to establish the principle of reciprocity, believing that if American and other troops were to be excluded from the jurisdiction of our courts it should be on the basis of reciprocity. The Home Secretary said that he could not accept the Amendment, but that he would give an assurance that the Bill will not be brought into operation as regards any country other than America until he is satisfied that there is reciprocity. He then went on to say that he must specifically and deliberately exclude the United States from his undertaking.
In other words, it is the Government's intention to bring this Bill into operation as regards the United States forces without being satisfied in any way about reciprocity, and, of course, at the moment the United States forces are the only


foreign forces in this country, and, therefore, the only forces to which the principle of reciprocity could apply.
I want to do the Home Secretary justice. I gather from what some of my hon. Friends have said that they were under the impression from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he would be able to get reciprocity from the United States. I did not form that impression. I gathered from his remarks that there was no possible question of ever getting reciprocity from the United States.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said, and I think I intervened to say it again, that I hoped to get reciprocity, and I will deal with this point in a moment when the hon. Gentleman has finished.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad to have it established that the Home Secretary hopes to get reciprocity. May I point out to him that under existing conditions there is no possible chance of reciprocity? There is no reciprocity at the moment, there is no likelihood of reciprocity in the near future, and I believe that there is no foundation for his suggestion that there is any legislation in contemplation before Congress that is designed to give reciprocity.
If we refer to what was said by the Lord Chancellor in another place in introducing this Bill on Second Reading, we find that he made the position quite clear. He was dealing with the question of ratification and he said:
The position is that so far no country has ratified the Agreement. In Canada, a Bill which is necessary to implement the Agreement has received the Royal Assent. One may assume, although I do not know, that that is but a preliminary to ratification. In the United States of America the Agreement was taken for ratification to the Senate on June 16 of this year—a short time ago. It is not certain whether it will be ratified before the adjournment, which is expected this month."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 177, c. 451–2.]
He then goes on to deal with the question of France.
It is quite clear from what the Lord Chancellor said that Canada had ratified the Agreement and was passing legislation, but in the United States it had come up for ratification. There is no word about any legislation. If there had been any legislation which it was contemplated would be placed before Congress the Lord

Chancellor would have known about it, and the Home Secretary would have known about it before he came down to this House with this Bill. Further, if there were any such Bill laid before the United States Congress there would be copies here. It is quite obvious that there is no such legislation.
What grounds has the Home Secretary for hoping that there ever will be reciprocity? Will he ascertain whether there has been any Bill laid before Congress? Will he tell us whether there has been any discussion through diplomatic channels with a view to United States Congress introducing legislation, and, if so, what form will that legislation take? Will it affect the existing jurisdiction not only of the Federal courts but of the State courts? Will it involve limitations on the existing jurisdiction of the states of the United States? Otherwise, we shall not have reciprocity.
I do not believe there is the slightest prospect of reciprocity on this subject with the United States, and this Committee has to pass this Bill, if it so wishes, knowing there is no chance of getting reciprocity with the United States.

Mr. S. Silverman: I only want to clear up a point between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened just now and said that he hoped reciprocity would apply. I want to remind him and the Committee that he intervened during my speech and what he said went far beyond an expression of hope. What he said was that he accepted the principle of reciprocity, that he did not think that we ought to do this in the case of any country except that country did it for us, and he applied that principle as much to the United States of America as to any other country. That goes far beyond a mere expression of hope that some day they would.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not sure how much weight we can put on the view of the Home Secretary's hope. I have given reasons why I believe it is groundless and completely false, and I think that, on reflection, he will agree with me. I do not think that that is the real reason why he is trying to resist this Amendment. He gave a reason why he thought, even without reciprocity from the United States or without any hope of reciprocity


from the United States, it would still be desirable to pass this Bill.
The reason he gave was that unless we pass this Bill the Act of 1942 would still remain on the Statute Book. That Act gives the American forces courts even greater powers than they will have when the 1942 Act is repealed under this Bill. They have a somewhat slighter exemption under this Bill. To do the Home Secretary justice, I should say that that was the real argument.
I want to deal with that argument now, because it is equally false. I am not at all sure that the Act of 1942 is still valid or operative. It was passed during the war and it met with a great deal of resistance both in this House and in another place. As the Lord Chancellor said, it was only made acceptable to the House of Lords because of the silvery tongue of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon.
The Home Secretary seemed to assume that that Act was still operative, but it might very well be argued that it has lapsed. It was passed to deal with a war-time, temporary emergency. The Preamble to the Act reads as follows:
An Act to give effect to the agreement recorded in Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America, relating to jurisdiction over members of the military and naval forces of the United States of America.
If we look at the Notes which were exchanged between the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who also held that office in 1942, and Mr. John G. Winant, of the United States of America, it is made perfectly clear that that Act was passed for the limited purpose of dealing with the presence of United States forces in this country during the war.

Mr. Silverman: And to give effect to the agreement.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, and to give effect to that agreement.
The Home Secretary skated quickly over this subject on the Second Reading. Why does the Home Secretary assume that that 1942 Act, passed in wholly temporary and unusual circumstances, is still in operation? He said:
From the Notes that were exchanged between the then Foreign Secretary and the American Ambassador, which were scheduled

to the 1942 Act, it is apparent that it was contemplated at that time that the Act should come to an end soon after the termination of hostilities; but there have always been American troops here since then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 567.]
7.0 p.m.
I was under the impression that all the American troops were withdrawn soon after the end of the war, with negligible exceptions, and that two or three years ago fresh contingents of American troops arrived because of the new defence arrangements. I could not agree with the Home Secretary that one can lightly assume that the Act of 1942 is in operation. If it is, it is a pure accident and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, it ought not to be in operation. It ought to be repealed and nothing put in its place, except on the basis of reciprocity.
Those of us putting this point of view are not doing so in any spirit of anti-American feeling. I believe that the Americans would be the first to realise the value of the sentiments that are being put forward from these benches. It is a very humiliating experience for this country to concede this exclusive jurisdiction to foreign courts except on the basis of reciprocity. There is no reason why we should do so among allies. I believe that the United States of America, with whom we are all anxious to be friendly, would respect us much more if we paused before we passed this Bill in order to insist on the basis of reciprocity with the United States. I am sure that they would appreciate the reasons.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very anxious to deal with the points which hon. Gentlemen have raised. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) should have said that I treated the House with discourtesy. I may have made statements with which he disagrees, but I have tried to deal with the points which have been raised, and such shall be my constant endeavour. The hon. Gentleman has refused to accept or to be satisfied with the view I have put and he says that he will persist in his Amendment. I should therefore like, before the Committee comes to a decision on the matter, to deal with one or two points.
The hon. Gentleman said he was very doubtful whether the Act of 1942 was


still in operation. He did not quote any part of the enactment of that Act to justify such a view.

Mr. S. Silverman: Yes. My hon. Friend called attention to the long title, which says:
An Act to give effect to an agreement recorded in Notes exchanged …
The Preamble says that the Notes were set out in the Schedule to the Act, which was to give effect to the agreement
during the continuance of the conflict against our common enemies.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is a great pity to try to give a legal opinion without having all the words. The hon. Gentleman knows that in presenting a legal argument I try to deal with the matter properly. I was just going to deal with the point which has been raised. I was saying, first, that there was nothing in the enacting Sections, as both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken know very well. The Long Title is not a part of the enacting portion of an Act of Parliament, and the Short Title is a description, which does not import the agreement. Even if it did, if hon. Gentlemen will be good enough to look at paragraph 10 they will see these words:
Finally, His Majesty's Government propose that the foregoing arrangements should operate during the conduct of the conflict against our common enemies and until six months (or such other period as may be mutually agreed upon) after the final termination of such conflict and the restoration of a state of peace.
During the six years when the Government of the country was in the hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, they allowed the agreement to continue. Even the tenuous argument which hon. Gentlemen have advanced therefore falls to the ground. Even as a means of keeping a lively discussion going, I believe they will not stand by the view that the Act is not in operation.
Both hon. Gentlemen have expressed the other point of view that the Act ought not to be in operation, even if it is. I am surprised. I am a fairly regular attender in the House of Commons, and during the six years when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sat on these benches I cannot remember their beseeching the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me,

or the right hon. Gentleman who was at the War Office, that the Act should be done away with. Even if they did so, and I was unlucky in not hearing them, the fact is that their Government did not repeal the Act. The Act is in operation.
I believe that the way in which this matter was introduced caused some surprise to the Chair, as did the fact that it was being discussed at such length. The point was that I had said that it was better to have a new Act containing the improvement introduced by the Bill giving effect to an agreement which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had made. It is not fair or right for hon. Gentlemen on those benches to assume that their own party leaders in the Government of the country would have made an agreement in these terms without believing, as they have certainly given us to understand they believed, that they were improving the position by making the agreement.
The second line of argument, that if the Act does exist it ought not to exist and in any case the Bill is no improvement on it, falls, not only on the merits but on the fact that the Bill has been made for the very purpose of such improvement by our predecessors in office.
The other point that has been put to me is whether the United States of America can bring in the necessary legislation, and it is said that I have no evidence in that regard. I have the very good evidence that the United States are one of the signatories of the agreement. If hon. Gentlemen will look at page 15 of the agreement, they will see the signatures of various countries, and of the United States of America. It is carrying even the ordinary extension of time for debate a considerable way to say that when a country has signed an agreement and in that way pledged itself to carry it out—and impliedly pledged itself to be able to carry it out—there is no evidence about it. That is carrying the point of view of argument a little too far.
I know that one could get an example of a Treaty having been made and not adopted. That can be done in any country, but here is a Treaty which has been signed. A few odd remarks about the American constitution thrown out at random by British lawyers is not a serious contention that the Treaty cannot be brought into effect.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have tried to meet the points, but if I have not been successful the fault and deficiencies are mine. Since, however, we have been discussing this for one and three-quarter hours, I really must ask the Committee to come to a decision. I have tried to appreciate the feeling on what I know is an important point.
I put it on these two broad grounds: first, that during any period of waiting for ratification we shall get the improved position which the Bill gives over the 1942 Act, and secondly, that I have every reason to believe that it will be ratified when Congress meets again. I cannot guarantee it, but I have every reason to expect it. I have tried to meet all the points and I ask the Committee to come to a decision with reasonable celerity.

The Chairman: Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey rose——

Mr. Bing: Would my right hon. Friend allow me——

The Chairman: I called the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey).

Mr. Strachey: This debate has certainly taken——

Mr. Bing: Would my right hon. Friend allow me for one moment——

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Mr. Bing: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. May I put to him and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the appropriate passages in the United States Constitution? I had the good fortune once to hold a fellowship in this subject at an American university. So while I cannot claim the conversancy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with it, I should like to put the difficulty which is in my mind and which my right hon. Friend might deal with, as the Home Secretary has been unable to do so. Article 5 of the United States constitution——

The Chairman: Order, order. I am here to call the speakers and I cannot allow this speech to continue. I called the right hon. Member for Dundee, West.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Sir Charles, do I understand it is your Ruling that if a right hon. Member gives way to one of his colleagues, it is not in order?

The Chairman: Giving way means that the colleague wants to correct something the hon. Member has said. The right hon. Gentleman has not even begun his speech yet. I have called him and therefore I expect that he will speak when he is called and that other hon. Members will speak when they are called.

Mr. Strachey: With great respect, Sir Charles, I feel that this is a matter of great substance which we are all trying to raise. The debate has taken a most unexpected course to me, because I thought that we would have the facts before us on which we could come to a conclusion on this matter. What has happened? We started our debate with a great deal of harmony—you were not in the Chair, Sir Charles, at the moment—on a point on which we were all agreed, namely, that there should be reciprocity, not just with America, but with all the countries which are parties to this agreement and to this proposed legislation.
It has been emphasised quite as strongly by the Home Secretary as by the Attorney-General and all the speakers on the Government Bench that all this would be impossible and intolerable unless there was reciprocity. I certainly took them at their word and imagined that that was how they felt also. Then we reached the curious stage when they said, "That is all true except in the case of the United States, where it will pay us to go ahead a little on their action in order to improve the position as against the 1942 Act." As I said when I spoke first, there is an arguable case for doing that, although I do not think it is right, if it is obvious that the United States action will come along in a few months' time. That is what the answer of the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) certainly led us to expect.
7.15 p.m.
At that point the suggestion was made from this side of the Committee that the action begun in the United States Congress last summer was not by any means


legislation to give effect to parallel provisions in the United States but merely an empty gesture. And remember that even that empty gesture was not made; it was only put before the United States Congress and Congress adjourned without gress, and Congress adjourned without taking any action. I am not saying that it was merely an empty gesture of ratification, but I am asking whether that was the case. I have not received an answer and none of us has received an answer from the benches opposite.
I can only suppose it is because they do not know and have not got a copy of the piece of paper which was before the United States Congress and which would tell us in a moment what it was and whether our doubts on that score are valid or not. Certainly it is essential for the Committee to know this before making up its mind on the question.
That was the first step. Then further suggestions were made by my hon. Friend that not only was the legislation which was initiated but not carried through the United States Congress not an implementation of parallel provisions in the United States, but that there was no prospect of legislation parallel to this being taken even when the new Congress comes along. Again, I do not know whether those suggestions were right or wrong, but they are extremely germane to this argument, and we were not told by the Home Secretary whether that was so or not.
A further suggestion was made from this side of the Committee that not only was there no apparent prospect of parallel legislation, but there was no possibility of it in the United States because such legislation would be unconstitutional. Again, I do not pretend to know whether that is the case, but again, unfortunately, the Home Secretary has not told us whether it is the case or not. How are we to make up our minds what to do about this Amendment unless we can be told whether that is the case?
If it is the case that it would be unconstitutional for the United States to pass parallel legislation, then, except in the extremely remote contingency of a constitutional amendment of the matter in the United States—which is so remote as to be out of the realm of practical politics—we are faced with the fact that if we take this action there is no question of reciprocity in the case of the United

States and we are doing it purely unilaterally and without any prospect of similar action.
And it is permanent legislation. It is no use saying that it is better than the 1942 Act because that was meant to come to an end at an early date. It might be argued that, in spite of all that, it would still be right to go ahead and take this unilateral action; but that was not the case put before us on the Second Reading or today. We have never had that argued. I do not know whether that is the position or not and I submit to you, Sir Charles, that no one on the Committee knows whether that is so, because the facts have not been put before us. We waited anxiously for the last remarks of the Home Secretary, but apparently he is unable to tell us whether or not that is the case.
In those circumstances, I simply do not see that there is any material before us to enable the Committee to come to a decision on the Amendment, which is all important—we are all agreed that reciprocity is the essence of this matter—and so I can only say that the Committee should suspend its proceedings until the facts can be put before us. Therefore, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Will hon. Members allow me to put the Question?
Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 26), "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: (seated and covered): May I draw your attention, Sir Charles, to the fact that the bells are not ringing?

The Chairman: If the bells are not ringing, of course hon. Members cannot be summoned to vote. Is it the case that the bells are not ringing?

Captain Waterhouse: The bells rang once only. They did not ring again. The police called a Division.

The Chairman: I think we had better go on with the Division, and I will try to have the bells repaired before the next one.

Ayes, 159; Noes, 183.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Pearson, A.


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Poole, C. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Porter, G.


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Richards, R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kinley, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Edelman, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)




Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Messer, F.
West, D. G.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Finch, H. J.
Morley, R.
Wigg, George


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Glanville, James
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Padley, W. E.



Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Royle.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pannell, Charles





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fell, A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carson, Hon. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Banks, Col. C.
Channon, H.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barber, Anthony
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, A. B.
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimond, J.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Birch, Nigel
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bowen, E. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donner, P. W.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Brooman-White, R. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Holt, A. F.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maude, Angus
Snadden, W. McN.


Horobin, I. M.
Maudling, R.
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Studholme, H. G.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Jennings, R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Odey, G. W.
Teeling, W.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Largford Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Linstead, H. N.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wellwood, W.


McCallum, Major D.
Robertson, Sir David
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKibbin, A. J.
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)



Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Scott, R. Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.

Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. You will remember, Sir Charles, that when my right hon. Friend moved his Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and I were both on our feet. You asked us whether we would resume our seats to that you might propose the Question, so I apologise—and, naturally, my hon. and learned Friend would apologise—for not having realised that that was necessary.
After we had resumed our seats, Sir Charles, you then proceeded to put the Question, as though it were not capable of debate. I was on my feet to debate the Motion which my right hon. Friend had proposed. I believe I am right in saying that the Motion to report Progress is a debateable Motion provided, under Standing Order 25, that the debate thereon is confined to the matter of the Motion; which I had every intention of doing. But we had no opportunity of debating it, because you proceeded to put the Question.

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman: There was no opportunity of debate because I put the Motion forthwith under Standing Order 26, which I am entitled to do; and I asked the hon. Member to sit down because in this Committee only one person stands at a time. If I am standing I expect other hon. Members to resume their seats.

Mr. Bing: May I put to the Home Secretary the difficulties which some of us feel? I hoped to be able to save time by putting them as an interpolation, but I see that I was mistaken in my view and I apologise to you, Sir Charles, for the discourtesy of talking at such length in an interruption.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I am obliged to you, Sir Charles, for drawing my attention to other Standing Orders, but I have looked at Standing Order No. 26 and it appears to deal with the operation of the Chairmen's Panel.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is reading the wrong book.

Mr. Bing: I have been able to furnish myself in this matter with, at any rate——

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. The book which I have purports to be


the House of Commons Manual of Procedure in Public Business, 1951. Is that not the right book?

The Chairman: That is not the Standing Orders. I think if the hon. Gentleman looks at the back of the book he will find Standing Orders—I think in the appendix. I think he will find, on page 236, the Standing Order under which I put the Question. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons is the book which guides our proceedings, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Standing Orders he will find that I was quite correct in what I did.

Mr. Bing: If I may interrupt the points of order for a moment, I would say that, fortunately, there is only one edition, or at any rate one standard form, of the constitution of the United States, and this I wish to draw to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. This is a point of some substance and we ought to have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman his view as to whether or not, under the constitution of the United States, it is possible for such legislation to be enacted.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I am sure, fully appreciate that none of us can claim to be an expert on the United States constitution. I do not think any exists. The Supreme Court always does something which none of the experts predicted. Nevertheless, I have had the good fortune to hold a fellowship in this subject at an American university and I therefore speak at any rate with some knowledge of the sort of difficulties which are likely to arise in the interpretation of the constitution. If I can give my very humble opinion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is that Article V of the Bill of Rights completely rules out the possibility of the United States being able to pass such legislation without an amendment to the constitution. I am sure that we agree that in view of the importance which the Bill of Rights series of amendments to the constitution occupies in the minds of the United States, it would be a far cry to suppose that, in order to facilitate legislation on this matter, they would amend the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps I may call to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the wording of Article V of the Bill of Rights,

which, as he knows, forms the first series of amendments, the series of 1791 amendments, to the constitution of the United States. Article V deals with "persons," a term which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is used in the United States constitution in contradistinction to "citizens" to cover both those who are citizens of the United States and those who happen to be there, Article V says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces ….
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that "land or naval forces" refers to the land or naval forces of the United States. As far as the law of the United States is concerned, the land or naval forces of any other country are merely civilians when they are in United States territory. That is the position as I understand it.
But even in the case of the United States forces, those powers are qualified by the words,
… when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the immense importance in the constitution of the phrase "due process of law," and an immense amount of case law exists about the meaning of this phrase. It continues,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What we want to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is whether there has been any consideration of "due process of law." Is it possible, with the due process of law condition in the constitution, for Congress to enact legislation enabling a court unknown to the United States to function on United States soil? It may be possible, but my own reading of the constitution would be otherwise, although nobody can claim to be an expert in this matter.
It is an extremely difficult matter and no doubt, before he introduced the Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the opinion of competent lawyers in the United States for, as he so rightly said, nobody in this Committee is able


to decide the question. At least we should be told that he has taken advice. If in his opinion his learned Friends were not in a position to give him advice, no doubt he obtained it from someone who was. What was that advice? Was the advice given to him that such legislation could be enacted?
Again, I refer him to the United States Constitution, this time to Article III with which, no doubt, he is equally familiar. That is the Article which provides for the exercise of the judicial power of the United States, and it provides that the judicial power of the United States
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman, despite these very clear words, believes that Congress has the right to establish courts which have no connection with the Supreme Court and which are not inferior to it, but which can operate a quite different and, as far as the United States are concerned, alien system of jurisdiction. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman glances at the bottom of Section 2 of the same Article—and I will not trouble the Committee with the whole of the argument—he will see the provision that
The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Committee will appreciate that what the Congress of the United States can enact in the way of setting up in the way of new courts is very strictly limited. I may be wrong; there may be some loophole by which such courts as these may be established—but that is the question which we are asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has gone into these matters; and I am quite certain that he would never have brought the Bill before the House unless he were in a position to assure the Committee that the provisions which he sought to be secured could in fact be secured in law.
What is the loophole? I may be entirely wrong on this, but one is faced with difficulty. It is quite true that the United States constitution provides for the organising, arming and disciplining of the militia and generally for the arming

and disciplining of the forces of the United States. That is how martial law can be administered in the United States. But, of course, as I understand it, that does not permit Congress to arm or discipline anybody else's forces. They must be the forces of the United States and
to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
is, again, one of the powers which is entrusted to Congress. But these, again, are the forces, as I understand the law, of the United States of America.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would attempt to deal with the argument rather than discuss the matter with the Chief Whip, which suggest another method of disposing of it, I should be infinitely obliged, and so would the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the United States Constitution is a complicated balance between the powers of the States and those of the Federal Government. As I understand the provisions of the agreement they would, so far as I can visualise the position, involve an alteration in the rights which the States at present exercise over the citizens of each State of the Union.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think I am wrong in that. Perhaps if that is so he will argue that point with me. If I am right in that, it is quite impossible for the Federal Government to enact any legislation at all. It may express the hope that the individual States will deal with the matter, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be well aware, unless a power has been expressly granted by the States to the Federal Government the Federal Government does not possess any power than that particularly granted. It is difficult to see how an Act of Congress could deprive a State court of a right which it previously possessed and was given under the constitution.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have answers to all these points. If he has not, it is a little presumptuous to ask the Committee to pass the matter and merely rely on a Closure vote. We are giving away British rights and we are asked to do so upon an undertaking given—an understanding on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this was an equal sharing between allies and that irrespective of how many


British troops there were to be in the United States they were to have identical rights.
We were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that was the basis on which he asked us to pass the Clause. He says there is some natural delay, the matter cannot get through the Senate. But the approval of a treaty by the Senate, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, only affects the treaty issue; that is not a judicial determination by the Senate as to whether, in fact, the provisions can in law be carried out. It is not for the Senate so to say because on a number of occasions States and Congress may have passed laws which have been material in some respect; so the fact that the Senate has ratified the treaty does not make it in any sense law.
The question one has to ask—and one has to ask a good constitutional lawyer in the United States, of which there are no doubt a number employed by the British Embassy—is, would such legislation in his view be constitutional or not? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a position to tell the Committee? Let me put my questions quite clearly to him. First, has he taken any advice from any American constitutional lawyer on this point? That is the first question he should answer. Second, if he has, what is the nature of that advice? Has he been told that it might be constitutional or it might not, or has he been told that it is most certainly constitutional? Third, if he has been told that it is quite possible for the Federal Government to enact such legislation, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the various points I have raised, which I admit may be mistaken or have been due to a misunderstanding of the American constitution. It is a very difficult subject.
7.45 p.m.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the arguments which we are in doubt about, which would spring to the mind of any constitutional lawyer who merely looks at these points, and, without doubt, have been dealt with in the opinion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obtained, if he has obtained one. He should have no difficulty in disposing of the argument if he has taken the trouble of obtaining an opinion. Will he tell us that he has taken an opinion? If not, will he give an

undertaking that he will postpone the Third Reading of the Bill until he has communicated with the American Government and discovered from them whether or not they think they can pass the necessary legislation to make the Measure reciprocal? At all events, I do not think that the Committee should now decide whether or not they should pass the Measure if the provisions are not to be made reciprocal.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should, in a matter which affects the liberty of the British subject, at least not put the Bill through when we are under a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the arrangement which has been made. It might be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will come frankly before us and say, "I made a mistake when I told the House that there would ever be any reciprocal
arrangement. We are told by the
American Government that it is absolutely impossible. Nevertheless, we ask you to pass the Bill."
That is an argument to which the Committee might or might not respond; I do not know. But we can have no proper democratic process here unless we are given the facts. None of us is able to interpret the United States constitution very well. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the United States Government their view, or are we to take it as his opinion of the United States constitution, which he explained was as worthless as mine?
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not have the Closure moved because, from experience we have had on other Measures, we all know that the House and Committee respond, and respond very warmly, when an attempt is made to meet the points and to deal with the matter on a proper basis of argument. But if the Bill is to be dealt with on the basis of moving Closures, stopping discussion and not answering any points, that is not the way which leads to any quicker progress. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the view which I know he always likes to take, if he is allowed to take it, of answering the arguments and giving us the facts.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like, first, to correct one plainly false point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman


made. He was dealing with the argument that if the 1942 Act had not come to an end it ought to have done, and he said that this was a quaint argument to come from us because we could have repealed it ourselves and he did not remember any pressure from myself or my hon. Friends on the late Government to do so.
He has forgotten the very paragraph in the agreement to which he drew my attention, namely paragraph 10 of the agreement in the Schedule of the 1942 Act, which says quite plainly that it is to continue until the cessation of hostilities, for six months at least after that and thereafter by agreement. The cessation of hostilities did not come until we ratified the Treaty with Japan. That was done when his party, not the party on this side of the House, was the Government. Therefore, that was really quite a false point, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct it when he deals with the more substantial ones, as I hope he will later.
I should like to ask where the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the matter now stands before the Committee. I accept that both during the Second Reading debate and today his opinion was that it would be wrong for the House in this Committee to enact this Measure to except on the basis of reciprocity, and that that basis included the United States of America. The position with regard to reciprocity in the United States is now very different from what it was when this debate began and during the Second Reading.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he would advise the Committee to do about the Clause, about this Amendment or about the Bill as a whole if it should turn out that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) turn out to be right? At the moment what is being said is, "It is all right. Let us do this thing now. Let us not now exact any undertaking not to bring in an Order in Council designating the United States of America as a sending country within the meaning of this Bill because everything will be all right some day and we can afford to wait. We shall be all right in the meantime." As we going to be all right some day?
At present, all that has happened is that the Senate has been asked to ratify the arrangements and that it has not yet done so. There is no suggestion of the introduction of any legislation. It has not been introduced. Nobody has said it is to be introduced and certainly nobody has said when it will be introduced. And apparently, if one may leave the irony out of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, no one so far has even taken the trouble to find out whether, in the event that the Senate some day ratify it and thereupon some legislation is introduced and in the event that that legislation then introduced is some day passed, it will not be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States and held to be invalid.
Supposing it should turn out that none of these steps is taken, or if these steps are taken it is then ruled that there is no power under the constitution of the United States to pass the necessary legislation? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman then still wish the Committee to pass this Clause as it stands, with no basis of reciprocity at all? If he would, then that is quite inconsistent with what he has said repeatedly up to the moment—that "I only ask you to pass this on the basis that America and other countries in whose favour we pass it do exactly the same thing."
Until these questions are cleared up it is a dereliction of public duty on the part of any Minister or any Government to ask the House of Commons and the Parliament of this country to oust the jurisdiction of our own court in relation to people on our own soil and acts committed against our own citizens, people entitled to be protected by the Queen's peace within our country.
It is absolutely wrong. It is the sort of thing that people would have been impeached for attempting in the old days. One may justify it possibly on the basis of reciprocity. It is conceded that one cannot justify it unless on the basis of reciprocity. It is now plain that there is no guarantee of reciprocity from the United States, and there is considerable doubt whether reciprocity is legal in that country. In those circumstances, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to accept an undertaking about reciprocity which applies to every country in


the world which can possibly benefit from this agreement, except the country which stands to benefit from it at the moment or in the foreseeable future.
This is carrying loyalty to allies rather far. Suppose we passed legislation of this kind and were then left without any reciprocal arrangements in the United States. Would it still be contended that we were a completely independent country and a free and equal partner in N.A.T.O. with the United States? Such a conception would be fantastic, reminding one more than anything else in the world of the late George Orwell's remark that in some countries and in some alliances everybody is equal but some are more equal than others—and we would be less equal than anybody. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee accepts one of the Amendments before it or rejects the Clause.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Like many other hon. Members, I came into the Committee this afternoon with the intention of listening rather than speaking. Many of us were in agreement with the general purposes of this Bill to make reasonable arrangements for the good working of the North Atlantic Alliance. But we realised that this is an extremely tricky Bill, that it might contain many legal pitfalls and even to those of us generally in its favour there were a number of points about which we were obliged to feel considerable anxiety.
We came, therefore, partly hoping to hear the legal technicalities expounded by those who understand them on both sides of the Committee, and partly so that we might be reassured about those sections of the Bill which seemed to a lay reading particularly risky or dangerous. Those of us who felt like that were not altogether surprised when, on the very first Amendment, it appeared that there was a considerable legal and constitutional point involved.
We were prepared for the fact that at any moment the lawyers might discover in the Bill something more than any layman could see. But what surprised us was that, when it was apparent that there was an important legal principle here that needed to be fully explained to the Committee, the Government were not in a position to help the Committee to a better

understanding. That has been surprising and disconcerting throughout the general debate on this Amendment.
What is the position? We are told that not only is it important to have a Bill of this kind, which we would all concede, but that it is important particularly to get it applying to United States forces so that it can take the place of the 1942 Act. But we are obliged to notice, as already mentioned by previous speakers, that this, unlike the 1942 Act, is to be permanent legislation on a subject on which it would be inconvenient and altogether unsuitable to bring in a series of amending Bills at frequent intervals. This is one of those topics on which once the House of Commons has legislated it will do well to leave legislation alone for a considerable time.
Therefore, it is of great importance that the Bill which we are asked to pass now should not only be in some respects preferable to the 1942 Act, but should be a good piece of legislation which we can put on the Statute Book with real confidence that we shall not need to amend or touch it for many years to come. Yet here, on the first point that comes up for discussion in Committee, it is apparent that it is no such thing, for no part of this Bill is good unless the principle of reciprocity applies.
When I saw the wording of the Amendment I thought that possibly it was an excess of caution to have the principle of reciprocity written into the Bill in this manner. I thought that if it was possible for the Government to establish beyond doubt that, in fact, there would be reciprocity one might do without altering the words of the Bill. But when the Government approach that task of trying to assure the Committee that the principle of reciprocity really will work and that there is no need for an Amendment like this in the Bill, we find that if there is to be reciprocity so far as the United States is concerned, first of all the treaty has to be ratified by the United States Senate.
All that is fact at the present time is that some steps have been taken towards ratification But Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to tell us when that process of ratification, even, is to be concluded. But we also know that to get reciprocity there must be legislation. At one stage in his remarks the Home Secretary used a form of words


which led us to suppose that there was some sort of Bill either actually drafted or possibly in contemplation by the United States Congress. Do I understand him to say that there is such a Bill?

8.0 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that I was told that the procedure was that at the same time that it was brought before the Senate for ratification there was also introduced—that was the practice—a Bill which would legalise and make binding a treaty. I understand that that is the practice.

Mr. Stewart: I am not quite clear how the Home Secretary can use the phrase "the practice" with regard to a type of legalisation for which there is no peacetime parallel either here or in the United States; but if he has been telling us that in the United States in the past, when the ratification of a treaty and consequent legalisation on any topic were in progress, it has been the practice to ratify and introduce legislation at about the same time—and I think that is what he is telling us—he is not telling us anything at all about any Bill to carry out this particular purpose.
If we ask the direct question: Has such a Bill been introduced into the Congress of the United States?—I think that we must conclude that the answer is "No." If we ask the question which an ordinary member of the Committee could not answer, but which might be answered by a member of the Government: Has such a Bill been prepared or is there even a draft of such a Bill?—the Government, the only members of the Committee who could possibly inform us on a point like that, are not only not in a position to do so but have not taken any steps to find out.
It is their casual behaviour which makes it difficult for those of us who welcome the Second Reading of this Bill, who want to watch it carefully, help it through and try to make it a good Bill, to go with the Government. We are obliged to remember that the Government have done this sort of thing before. During the debate on this Bill in Committee I have been alarmingly reminded of the proceedings at the beginning of the Session on the Home Guard Bill, where the Government made the same error of handling a problem, about which we were

all prepared to help it, by bringing forward a hastily devised piece of legislation and having on the Front Bench people who could not answer any of the questions which the House and the Committee would normally ask during the progress of a Bill.
It would not matter so much if the Government did that on a purely domestic matter, but it is too bad when the Government behave in this casual fashion about a matter in which good relations between this country and the United States are involved. We all know that if there are to be good relations between us there are a great many legal and administrative problems which have to be carefully thought out and wisely presented to this Parliament and to Congress in the United States.
The Government ought to have taken more than usual care in the presentation of a Bill of this kind. We are being asked not only to put up with a piece of Governmental slovenliness, but a piece of Governmental slovenliness on a topic where especial care is required. I am sorry if I have spoken with an excess of indignation on the matter, but it is distressing—particularly to people who, like myself, have on a number of occasions gone out of our way to help the cause of good relations between ourselves and the United States—to see those good relations endangered by mere muddle and by the Government coming to the Committee not properly equipped with the facts.
There are still two or three ways by which the Government could get out of this difficulty and by which we could advance to the proper consideration of the Bill. They could say that they will accept my hon. Friends Amendment or if—as so often happens—the actual wording of the Amendment is not satisfactory and might not even realise the end which my hon. Friends had in mind in putting it down, they could say that they will do what the Amendment has in mind by some different means. For instance, they could adopt the suggestion contained in a further Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Again, they could say, "We do not want to accept either of these Amendments at the present time, but we will give an undertaking to bring in on the Report stage an Amendment which brings about the substance


that is asked for, because the consideration of this Bill is still young at the present time."
If they did not want to go even as far as that they could adopt the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that we should go ahead with the Bill now, but that it should be understood that the Bill should not proceed to its final stages until there had been consultation with the American Government and right hon. Members on the Front Bench were in a position to give us the information and the assurances which are necessary and which they cannot give us at the present time.
There are, therefore, three or four ways in which the Government could get out of the difficulty in which they have landed themselves, and in view of this I hope that they will be willing to adopt one of them. If they are not I am bound to say that I do not see how I or many of my hon. Friends could in any way refrain from supporting the Amendment which has been put down.

Mr. Ede: I know that this is an exceedingly difficult matter, and when it appeared to me that I might have the task that has fallen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight I regarded it with the greatest apprehension. I am quite sure that he will realise that I have some consideration for the difficulties that arise. Everyone in the Committee expects that if this Bill is passed it will result in reciprocal action in any country whose armed forces get the benefit of its operation here. I think that is common ground on both sides of the Committee.
I am not going to deal with the difficulties of the American constitution except to say that one of the biggest difficulties that exist has not yet been mentioned, which is that in the Senate, to get ratification, two-thirds of the votes have to be obtained, no matter whether people turn up or not. It is not two-thirds of those present and voting, but 64 at least out of the 96 members.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us this—because this goes to the root of the whole matter: If we assume that by the end of next year the American Senate has not ratified the agreement or, if it has, the American

Congress has not passed the necessary legislation to make matters reciprocal in the two countries, what would he propose to do?

Mr. Paget: I want to ask one other question before we leave this matter. We have concentrated on America, but this Measure comes into force immediately with regard to many other countries, such as India, Pakistan and Ceylon. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Indian Government have passed the necessary legislation, and whether the Indian constitution allows them to reintroduce legislation which would involve having British troops once again in India with extraterritorial rights and exercising a separate jurisdiction? As I remember the constitution of India it was designed to prevent that very thing. Had the Indians and the Pakistanis been consulted?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I recognise the fact that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) rose out of a fellow-feeling—if not for me for the inheritor of the Visiting Forces Bill, and I feel that it would be quite wrong not to respond. I realise, also, that the hon. Member who preceded him is anxious to help forward the principle of the Bill, however he may feel about certain points.
If I may recapitulate the position as I see it, it is this: I put before the Committee my belief—which, I know, some hon. Members opposite do not share—that in any set of facts it would be a good thing to get an improvement from the 1942 Act by this Bill. That was the first position and the second position was that I have no reason to suppose anything to the contrary, as I hope I have made clear in the last few hours, that the United States would give us reciprocity. The way I put it to the Committee, as the Committee will remember, was, I think, after an interjection by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that I want a change from the 1942 position. I thought we ought to effect that change even though reciprocity were delayed owing to the fact that Congress would not be meeting for some time.
Therefore, I asked the Committee—it now seems a long time ago—whether they would accept the qualified amendment which was that it should apply in the case of all other countries, but not in the case of the United States. I think


the Committee will do me this credit, that I did put the position before them quite frankly that that was what I was trying to do.
The point on which the hon. Member for Fulham East (Mr. M. Stewart) criticised me—and I admit there may be substance for that criticism—is that I have not had the documents before me which, I was informed, went to Congress. If the Committee hold me blameworthy for that I take the blame. That is one point; I have been given certain information and, although I quite agree that the perfect Minister in the perfect world would never accept information about the document without seeing the document, I confess I did not. I took the information which was passed on in a Departmental way.

Mr. M. Stewart: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to have the information before the House on the Report stage?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have already made inquiries. I do not want to give an undertaking when I am in a difficult position, but I have already tried to get it and I would rather leave it that way than to give an undertaking about it. On that point I agree, but I have never told the Committee otherwise. That was the information given to me and that was what I believed and still believe to be the position.
The new point that has developed today is the suggestion that there are constitutional difficulties. I put to the Committee these two facts. First of all, all countries mentioned in the case of which constitutional difficulties have been imagined, have signed the agreement. The agreement was signed a considerable time ago and it was signed by the
Government which hon. Members
opposite supported. The country has signed the agreement and I think it is going quite far to suggest that they would sign the agreement knowing, or having had the view suggested, that it could not be ratified.
8.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentlemen and their colleagues, when they made this agreement, had the most expert advice, not only from their own offices, but from all the international law resources which are at the call of the Foreign Office. I

cannot believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite signed an agreement which they knew, or even suspected, could not be given effect to by the other signatories. I am sure they would not have done that. It is an interesting point that there are two of them present who were in the Government at the time. Of course, neither of them has suggested that they signed the agreement with any suggestion being made that the co-signatories could not carry it out, any less or any more than this country could carry it out.
We have had a most interesting excursion into the constitutional position in the United States. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will not hold it against me as being levity when I say that I have argued on a remunerative basis some of the points he raised, but I will not say that I have not enjoyed them tonight, because he raised the points quite well.
Now I come to the point put to me by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). As he appreciates, there is power not only to apply the Act but to disapply the Act. That can be done and he would not, nor would anyone who has been a Minister, expect me to say now what course will be taken if certain things should eventuate. I point out that we have got these powers and I sincerely hope that nothing will be done to break down the co-operation of the general alliance and working together for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite worked and for which we are working. I only point out, as a matter of constitutional law and procedure, which is what we have been discussing tonight, that there are avenues open, and we have kept them open, to deal with the situation should it develop in an unfortunate way.
After what I have said, I hope the Committee will be prepared to come to a decision in this matter. As hon. Members have indicated, this is not the final stage of the Bill; the matter can be brought up again. Although it is not strictly in order, may I say that I have tried—as hon. Members who have perused the Order Paper will know—in a number of cases to meet points raised on Second Reading. There are at least seven subjects where I have tried to do so by putting down Amendments. I should not like the Committee to take


from any words of mine the feeling that this has been dealt with in an unfriendly way. That is the last thing I want.
I have put the position as it seems to me. I have tried to put frankly to the Committee the position I am in. If the Committee feel that I ought to have obtained more exact information, in the traditional way I can only tell the Committee at once that I am sorry I have not and that I will do my best to rectify it and at all times to be frank about the position.
As we have had this discussion and hon. Members have, quite properly, voiced their criticism with the directness we expect in this Committee, I hope that they will leave this point to be pursued on a further occasion. But if they desire

to register their view they can vote for an Amendment which, I am afraid, if passed would not have the effect of doing what it is intended to do.

Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the point that this Bill comes into operation not by Order in Council, but immediately in regard to India and Pakistan. Cannot he tell us what India and Pakistan have done about reciprocity?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have a look at Clause 19?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 164.

Division No. 242.]
AYES
[8.20 p.m.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Padley, W. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Bartley, P.
Grimond, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Benson, G.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Charles


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paton, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.


Blackburn, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Peart, T. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Boardman, H.
Hayman, F. H.
Poole, C. C.


Bowden, H. W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Popplewell, E.


Bowen, E. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Porter, G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holt, A. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Richards, R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Short, E. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dalton, Rt. Hon H.
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wade, D. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Messer, F.
West, D. G.


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Glanville, James
Murray, J. D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woodburn, Rt Hon A.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oldfield, W. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Banks, Col. C.
Heath, Edward
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barber, Anthony
Higgs, J. M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, M.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hollis, M. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Horobin, I. M.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robson-Brown, W.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott, R. Donald


Bullard D. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Burden, F. F. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Carson, Hon. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cary, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Channon, H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cole, Norman
Low, A. R. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Storey, S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McCallum, Major D.
Studholme, H. G.


Crouch, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Summers, G. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
McKibbin, A. J.
Teeling, W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Touche, Sir Gordon


Donner, P. W.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Turner, H. F. L.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fell, A.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Wellwood, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Godber, J. B.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, H. R.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.



Graham, Sir Fergus
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.
Mr. Vosper and


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Odey, G. W.
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Question put, and agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "such," to insert "limitations."
This is a verbal Amendment which I hope the Government will accept. It is intended to make abundantly clear that in respect of any foreign country to which hereafter the Government decide by Order in Council to apply the provisions of this Bill, they may in the Order in Council introduce any limitations that may be necessary on the exemptions being granted by the main provisions of this Bill.
For example, it may well be found that in the course of negotiations, either with

the United States Government or other Governments, that for constitutional or other reasons some other Government is unable to give us full reciprocity. They may be able to give us some protection but not the full protection envisaged by this Bill. In those circumstances, it might be desirable that the Bill should apply to some other foreign country with whatever limitations the Government may be able to arrange as a result of some negotiations. I hope the Government will accept both the spirit and the letter of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I should like to associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said. I do


so because I am trying to apply one general test to all the Amendments on the Order Paper, namely: Do they or do they not give such additional powers to the Government of this country to protect the situation as it affects us without prejudice to the general principles underlying the Bill? Because this Amendment seeks to give just a little additional power to the Government—additional power which will not, I think, prejudice the generality of the argument in favour of the Bill as a whole—I express the hope that the Attorney-General will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment. Perhaps I might be allowed to say just this. Subsection (3) says:
it shall have effect subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the Order.
The view we take, which I venture to think is a quite sound one, is that "adaptations or modifications" could never be construed as allowing any substantial extension. At the same time, it can do no possible harm to make it quite clear that it is only to cover limitations. Therefore, in order to save time, and also because it is a perfectly sound principle to make matters abundantly clear, we propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget: I had put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (3). I believe that the Amendment which has now been accepted together with the assurance of the Attorney-General go a very long way to meet my point on that subsection. I feel that on a Bill such as this, which limits constitutional rights, it would be altogether wrong to provide that the Bill itself and the powers it gives should be variable by the Executive by Order. With a view to adapting it to specific countries, it may be necessary to cut out certain parts, as long as that does not involve adapting it by enlarging it and enlarging the powers.
I wish to revert to the central argument which we have had upon this question of reciprocity. I raised this matter very

strongly on the Second Reading because I believed then, and this argument has done much to confirm me in that belief, that this was really the wrong way to do it; that one ought not to legislate in order to give effect to the general agreement, but one ought to legislate to give effect to each particular agreement when it has been hammered out to suit the circumstances of each particular country.
On this question of reciprocity, I pointed out to the Home Secretary, at the conclusion of his speech upon the main Amendment, that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, comes into operation immediately so far as India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the other Dominions are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman then referred me to Clause 19, and it is perfectly true that the Measure as a whole is only brought into operation by Order in Council, but if it is brought into operation for anybody, whether it be America or anybody else, then immediately it is brought into operation in the case of the Dominions whose names are set out in Clause 1.
I feel that we ought not to pass from this Clause without pressing the Government, at least when we come to the Report stage, to tell the House what India has done, what Pakistan has done and what Ceylon has done; what agreements have been come to with those countries and whether, in fact, there is to be any reciprocity with those countries.
Again, some of us would be interested to know what is the position with regard to the Union of South Africa. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is always so charming in the House, in taking all the blame upon his shoulders for coming here and asking for a Bill without any of the relevant information being before the Committee, that one feels a little boorish in pressing the matter, but, nevertheless, it is a serious matter if we are not to have this relevant information at some point, and I ask before we part with this Clause for an assurance that we may be informed, when we get to the Report stage, what is the position in regard to each of these countries, what legislation they have introduced, what legislation is necessary, and whether it is possible for India and Pakistan within their constitutions to introduce legislation analogous to that which we are being asked to pass tonight.

Mr. Bing: I did not get up to prevent the Attorney-General from rising. I only got up because it seemed to me that he was not going to deal with the issues. If he is now going to do so——

The Attorney-General: I was being courteous.

Mr. Bing: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. Probably both of us were being courteous for so long that it almost gave the Chairman an opportunity to put the Question, and that is a courtesy which, I am sure, both sides of the Committee would think was being carried a little too far. Now that I am on my feet, may I say that if the Attorney-General is in a position to deal with the legal argument, which his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was not, I think that on both sides of the Committee we would greatly appreciate it.
We should like to know what steps will be taken to discover how other States will give us reciprocity. Can the Attorney-General tell us when this information will be available? Can he assure us that a cable has now gone to Washington to ask for an opinion to be sent to us? In America there are lawyers who work at high pressure, and no doubt we should within three or four days—or the matter can be deferred until the next Session, because there is no hurry about it—be in a position to know whether or not we shall get reciprocity. It is not so much to ask. I am sure that the Attorney-General feels that if he is not able to answer the question it must be one of great profundity and one on which it is worth seeking a United States opinion.
Tentatively, many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have put forward the view that reciprocity on the part of the United States is impossible. Is the Attorney-General so certain about that? What was quite clear was that the Home Secretary had confused two processes of legislation which are well known to those who make a study of the methods of the United States Congress. The Home Secretary was confusing the legislation which sometimes accompanies the ratification of a treaty with the legislation which implements it, but they are two distinct and different matters. We want to know, not merely whether the necessary legislation to ratify, where such is

required, is to be introduced, but whether there is any intention or ability to introduce any legislation in order to implement the treaty in the United States.
I hope the Attorney-General is in a position to give us that information now. In those circumstances, I willingly give way, having risen, as he well appreciates, only owing to a misunderstanding between himself and myself.

The Attorney-General: I apologise for any misunderstanding which there may have been between myself and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I did not rise because I did not believe it possible that he did not propose to speak on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that lawyers work at high pressure. I agree that some of them seem to do so.
The matters which he has raised can very safely be left in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has already said that he will go into them carefully. Only the Home Secretary can deal with them at the proper time. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to drive a wedge into this side of the Committee.
I cannot very well carry any further the fundamental question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It has already been discussed at such length that I feel that anything I added to it would be a waste of the Committee's time. Therefore, I really do not think I can add any more, except to say that I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend in the matter. As it is his concern, it is very much better to accept what he has already said, and I ask the Committee to do that.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say that it is the Home Secretary's concern, but surely it is the concern of the Government and of the whole Committee. As the Attorney-General must surely be aware by now, we are all vitally concerned about the matter.
All that my hon. Friends are asking for is an assurance that effective mechanical steps have been taken by somebody in the Government to obtain the information from the United States—also from India and Pakistan, but from the United


States in particular—so that on the Report stage the House will know precisely what, if any, legislation has been introduced before the United States Congress to give effect to the Treaty if and when the United States ratifies it. My hon. Friends also want to know what information the Government have obtained as to the constitutional powers of Congress or the various state legislatures to pass legislation which will give effect to the treaty. Surely the Attorney-General can give us an assurance that steps are being taken to furnish that information not merely at the Report stage but before the Report stage.
8.45 p.m.
We are trying to get this vitally important legislation, which affects the liberty of the subject, through its remaining stages before the Session comes to an end, and it is not fair to ask us to do it unless we are properly informed about the relevant position. I do not know when the Report stage is to take place, but today is Wednesday and the Report stage cannot take place before Monday. This is a subject on which I hope for an assurance that we will be furnished with this information before the Report stage. It could be published as a White Paper. Could we please have that assurance?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Committee is in a real difficulty, which arises because the Government have introduced a Measure without informing themselves fully as to the importance of the principles involved. The information that we seek is of vital consequence. It would be out of order if I quoted too extensively by way of analogy what, in my view, was the precipitate action of the Government in regard to the German treaties. There does not seem to be any reason why, in any other international arrangement or series of recognitions in which we are concerned, we should always and invariably be the first Government to take the necessary steps without trying to find out what others are doing.
It might be possible to argue that we cannot hold up the necessary legislation here until we obtain the views of all other countries which might be concerned, and get from them specific assurances and all that sort of thing; but it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government should have some information

in the case of this Bill as to what is taking place in other countries. It would help to allay some of the disquiet and discomfort which some of us feel about this Measure.
We have no wish to put forward unreasonable difficulties or arguments. It is true that the Measure has been introduced at a late stage in the Session and we are pressed for time, but that fact should not deprive us of the right to be as fully informed as we can be of the action that is being taken by other Governments concerned in the matter.

Mr. Paget: I do not want to be awkward, but here the Government bring forward a Bill and say that its basis is reciprocity. They have not got the information as to what one other single party to the agreement has done in order to bring about that reciprocity which
they themselves say is fundamental. They tell us that Canada is the only one that has ratified the treaty let alone introduced the legislation which we are considering tonight. They do not know anything, as far as I am aware, about what legislation has been introduced in Canada. They have no idea what has been introduced in Australia and not a clue as to what has happened in New Zealand, let alone in the Union of South Africa, Pakistan or India.
Is it not reasonable in those circumstances that we should, before we part with the Bill, ask for an assurance and ask to be supplied with the elementary information of the utmost importance with which we ought to have been supplied? One does not want to force unnecessary Divisions or to waste time, but if we cannot have a satisfactory assurance we cannot accept the Clause.

Mr. Bing: The Attorney-General's answer was most unsatisfactory. Nobody is trying to drive a wedge between him and his hon. and learned Friend, but we have always worked on the principle that if a senior colleague leaves the Bench and a junior one is left he is the one who speaks for the Government. If the senior leaves the Bench he cannot speak. The only one who is left on the Bench is the Attorney-General and I address my questions to him.
He knows that under Article 18 all the ratifications have to be deposited at Washington. We are told that only one


State has ratified the agreement. How can we make certain that we shall get reciprocity if we cannot be certain that sufficient States will deposit their ratifications to make the agreement work at all? When does the hon. and learned Gentleman expect that those ratifications will be deposited? When does he expect to get even the minimum number? We do not need very many to carry the matter through, but at least we need four.
Are we to get information when four States will have ratified? As 30 days have to elapse after the four States ratify, what is the argument about against postponing the Measure now? Surely it can be left over until next Session, when assurances can be obtained from the United States. If they cannot be obtained, the Bill can be reintroduced on a new basis.
The agreement was entered into in perfectly good faith that reciprocity would be obtainable. If there are doubts about reciprocity they alter the whole situation. It may be desirable to ratify the agreement under conditions where there is not reciprocity, but we ought to be in a position to know. It is not for the hon. and learned Gentleman to push off his responsibility by saying, "It does not matter. One of my colleagues has said something."
Before we part with the Clause we want the Attorney-General to say something and to give a further undertaking that the information will be obtained and that there will be a clearer statement before we are asked to look at the matter again. That is the undertaking we ask for from him, and we hope that we shall get it.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry if there is any misunderstanding about my attitude. What I said was dictated by one idea and one only, which was that when the Home Secretary had said he would do his best before the Report stage to get the information if it was available it was imperative for me not to cast the slightest doubt upon that undertaking. As a loyal colleague it was my duty to say that my right hon. Friend would do his best to get the information and place it as the disposal of the House. I cannot go any further than that.
An undertaking that something will be done has to be interpreted, as the hon.

and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) ought to know, in a practical way. To give an undertaking that we will do our best to get the information is one thing. To undertake to get the information is something which I cannot do. We shall, of course, do our best to get it and to deal with the questions which have been raised.
The proper thing to do in this situation I have always thought, with my training, which has been just the same as that of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, is to make sure that we get the best information available and give it at the time when we have it. That time, it seems to me, is the Report stage, at which we can give all the information that is available for this purpose. The House will have the matter entirely in its own hands and it is simply with the idea of saving the time of the Committee, of helping the Committee as much as possible, that I suggest that is the right line for us to take.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS BY SERVICE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES OF COUNTRIES SENDING VISITING FORCES.)

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that no one shall be punishable within the United Kingdom for an offence based upon racial discrimination.
Clause 2 (1) provides that
The service courts and service authorities of a country to which this section applies may within the United Kingdom, or on board any of Her Majesty's ships or aircraft, exercise over persons subject to their jurisdiction in accordance with this section all such powers as are exercisable by them according to the law of that country.
that is the sending country, the country whose troops come here.
Among the countries to whom this Measure will apply—and as soon as it applies to anybody it applies to the Dominions who are set out in Clause 1 (1, a)—is the Union of South Africa. The Union of South Africa has a number of penal offences, based upon their principle of apartheid, which make various forms of association between people of different races a criminal offence because their races are different.
9.0 p.m.
It seems to me that the effect of this Measure is to create circumstances in which people could be punished in this country for offences based upon racial discrimination. I am sure that it would not be the wish of anybody in the Committee, on any side, that anybody could be punished in this country for an offence based upon a law of racial discrimination. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I agree with the principle that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said is behind his Amendment, and I should have thought that the Committee could accept it without debate. It is difficult to see how we could justify any other conclusion. I am, however, a little unhappy about the wording of the Amendment, which says:
Provided always that no one shall be punishable within the United Kingdom for an offence based upon racial discrimination.
That could be read in the exact opposite sense to what my hon. and learned Friend intends: that provided the offence is based upon racial discrimination everything is all right.
I think that what my hon. and learned Friend meant to refer to was a thing which is only an offence because of legislation about racial discrimination which makes that an offence, which otherwise would not have been one. As I am quite certain that that is what my hon. and learned Friend meant, I should like to support it, but for the reason I have explained I enter a caveat about the wording.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Again, I recognise fully the spirit which animates the Amendment. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to some difficulties which arise, and I think that when hon. Members have considered them they will appreciate that they are practical difficulties and not merely debating points.
Hon. Members will appreciate that the agreement provides that the authorities of the sending country shall be able to exercise within the receiving country all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of the sending country. That was the term in the agreement to which right hon. Gentlemen opposite

committed themselves in making the agreement. Therefore, in so far as the Amendment seeks to limit this power, it would mean going contrary to the agreement. For that reason, apart from any others, I could not advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who moved the Amendment, said that he has in mind the difficulties that would arise if the South African forces—I am not sure whether he mentioned the United States forces, but I think he had in mind chiefly the South African forces—were to operate in this country laws based on colour discrimination.
I confess that I cannot see a number of practical points arising when there are persons of different colours in a visiting force, but that is an argument that, I agree, is a difficult one to advance because, of course, it may simply be that my imagination is not working as well as that of hon. Members on the other side. But I have that feeling.
I do not want to go outside the limits of the Amendment, but I think I know what the hon. and learned Member has in mind and, from a practical point of view, I should not have thought that trouble was likely to express itself in the kind of offence with which we are dealing in the case of visiting forces, because it must be remembered that the primary right is concerned with offences committed on duty, in which case I do not think this problem would arise very much.
I envisage that the hon. and learned Member had in mind offences dealing with persons of the same forces. I have tried to visualise the situation, but I do not think it is so likely in a fighting unit as it would be in the ordinary walks and ways of peace. Of course, I speak with great diffidence in a matter on which I am not qualified to speak, but the general impression which I have—and I hope that all quarters of the Committee will agree with me—is that in a fighting unit these difficulties tend to disappear rather than to be exaggerated. That, I believe, to be a fair summary from the experience of a great many countries in the last war.
The last point which I would press on the hon. and learned Gentleman—and I think it was in the very experienced mind of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne


(Mr. S. Silverman), if I may say so—is that the words "based upon racial discrimination" are inappropriate and that legislation in such a way would be ineffective. I have considered the matter and discussed the agreement with those who advise me, and I feel that this is a term which lacks the certainty sufficient to make it a basis for legislation.
Nevertheless, as I indicated earlier, I would rather not put it on the more narrow point, although I believe it is a point which would make it difficult to put the Amendment into effective legislative operation. I ask the Committee to consider the two points which I made earlier. First, this Amendment would involve our going contrary to the agreement, which is a very serious and difficult point; and secondly, a point which gives more hope of satisfaction, that any knowledge which I have of military units suggests that this attitude of mind is much less likely to occur than has been suggested.
I sympathise with the fears of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, but I find it very difficult to see how they can be met without breaking the two points which I have made—that of going contrary to the agreement and that of achieving an effective legislative result. I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment. Indeed, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press it, on the understanding that this view goes out from the Committee: that we earnestly trust that the new endeavour which is envisaged in the Bill will rise above such things as have caused the fears which animate the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.

Sir Ian Fraser: I think the Home Secretary must be right when he suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the situation apprehended by hon. Gentlemen opposite could ever arise. It is hard to believe that any visiting force coming from South Africa would contain different races between whom there is any legislation such as hon. Gentlemen have in mind. That is hardly credible.
Therefore, while I understand the theory which moves them, I think the Home Secretary must be right in saying that it can hardly be a practical issue.

I think it must be in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a law in South Africa, for instance, which inhibits marriage between white persons and black persons. But that is mutual. It is not discriminatory in the sense that it makes it a crime for one; it is a crime for all.
In that sense it is not discriminatory at the expense of one rather than the
other, but is a demonstration of a way of
life adhered to by both those groups of people who live in South Africa. I plead with hon. Gentlemen to accept the Home Secretary's view that this is hardly a practical issue, and that no good, so far as our relationship with South Africa is concerned, could possibly be done by pressing it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I had not intended to trouble the Committee again, but I find the last intervention a little disturbing. There is not a law adopted, I understand, by the coloured population of South Africa which makes them punish any of their members for marrying a white person. Apart from that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has provided for the first time in the discussion an instance of how this matter might really become practical politics here.
If a South African force were here and a member of one colour married a citizen of this country who was of the other colour, he might very well be prosecuted in the courts of his own force for an offence against South African law. We should then have a situation of a man perhaps suffering imprisonment in our country for something which certainly does not apply in our law and which I am sure all of us in the Committee hope will never be a crime under our law.
The hon. Member has not realised how repugnant it would be to the moral sense of the whole of our community if people were made to suffer penal penalties in our country under laws like this one, passed by ourselves, for things which may be offences in their own country but which are not an offence or a moral lapse or anything to attract any kind of adverse comment according to our way of looking at things.
It is one thing to give visiting forces a power to exercise their necessary discipline among themselves: it is quite another to use our State machinery to


apply criminal sanctions in matters which we do not regard as criminal.

Mr. Paget: I fully recognise the great difficulties which are involved. On the other hand, I must say, quite frankly, that I do not think the views expressed by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) have made it easier to withdraw the Amendment. What one has to recognise here is that if we pass this Bill unamended we are, for the first time in our history, making punishable in England, and with the assistance of our police forces, offences which are created only to maintain and support principles of race discrimination which every one of us abhors. To make these acts punishable for the first time in England is a serious matter.
9.15 p.m.
We are making them punishable whether they occur in England or not. A South African may have shown sympathy for the coloured cause in South Africa and have committed one of these offences while he was in South Africa, and then he can be arrested and tried in this country for that offence. But I recognise the very great difficulty both in drafting, in being able to define what one means, and in getting within the Treaty. We come up against it again and again.
Going back to a point which I made on Second Reading, I think that it is quite a wrong method to legislate in a general way, to give general effect to this treaty. We would have done far better to wait until we came to our specific Agreement with each of the N.A.T.O. countries and made the legislation necessary to deal with that particular Agreement. We should have been able then, by methods of negotiation, to avoid many of the difficulties which we are bound to bump into when we generalise. But in the light of the difficulties which, I recognise, are involved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) civilian personnel accompanying, and in the employ of the visiting force of that country and for the time being subject to the service law of that country otherwise than as members of its armed forces and who are not stateless persons nor nationals of any state which is

not a party to the North Atlantic Treaty nor citizens of nor ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Colonies.
This is simply a drafting Amendment to tighten the Bill a little and to bring it within the terms of the treaty. The
words which I have set out in the Amendment are the words which are put in the treaty. They are tighter and more limiting words in the definition of civilian personnel than the ones in the Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Are we not on the Amendment to line 26?

Mr. Paget: I am so sorry. I thought it was the Amendment to line 22. Are you not calling that Amendment, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: I have not selected that.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I know that it is out of order to ask the reasons for your action, Sir Charles, because the selection of Amendments is wholly within the discretion of the Chair. But may I draw your attention very respectfully to the fact that Clause 2 (2, b) makes the powers of the Bill applicable to a wide group of persons who are not members of the visiting forces? I suggest, with respect, that the Committee might very well like to have the opportunity of considering whether the exclusion from jurisdiction which the Bill provides ought to apply to any other persons than the persons who are actually members of the visiting forces. This raises a really very important principle.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for making a correct statement of the rules of procedure. I have not selected the Amendment and, of course, I do not give the reason; but I assure the hon. Member that I have given very careful consideration to all the Amendments and I have come to that conclusion.

Mr. Paget: I apologise to you, Sir Charles, for my error. I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
but shall not include any person conscripted by that country subsequent to his arrival in the United Kingdom.
I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It might help the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that I am prepared to look at this point. I


do not want to interrupt him or to suggest that he should not make his speech, but what I proposed to do when I was called was to tell the Committee the sort of difficulties which I have to face and then to say that I was quite prepared to look at this question and hoped to be able to find a solution along certain lines. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not take it amiss that I have interposed to say this, because from my own experience it does sometimes rather change the tempo and tenor of one's speech if one knows that it is going to be of some effect.

Mr. Paget: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will say no more than that one did visualise the danger involved under the Bill as it stood, in that any of the countries who are parties to this agreement could have conscripted any of their nationals who had come here not as soldiers but as political refugees or anything else. Once they had been conscripted, under the terms of this Bill we could have been called upon to arrest and hand them over to their military authorities. Therefore, we feel that this question should be confined to people who are brought here as soldiers or as personnel and not to people whom the visiting country may make soldiers after those people have arrived here in a civilian capacity.

Lieut.-Colonel Lepton: I feel that one or two further comments are required on this Amendment, conditioned by the statement that the Home Secretary was good enough to make a moment or two ago.
My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the case of someone being conscripted after he had arrived in the United Kingdom, if he is still a national of the country to which the visiting forces may belong. The Home Secretary has indicated that he is going to try to find some formula or form of words which will go some way to cover the difficulty that my hon. and learned Friend has raised.
In his consideration of this matter, I would ask the Home Secretary whether he would also consider the possibility of the case of an actual member of a visiting force who may, for reasons into which it is not now necessary to go, decide to apply for political asylum here. It may arise out of some possibility of being

punished for an offence based upon racial discrimination. When the Home Secretary considers this particular Amendment, he may be able to cover this risk. I do not know to what extent it is likely to occur, but it is something for which we should provide if we possibly can. There is always the possibility that such a case may arise.
We do not know what may be the internal political conditions or circumstances in any of the States with which we are associated in the particular legislation now under consideration, but it may well be that circumstances will arise in which persons actually serving in a visiting force may, for quite good reasons, seek political asylum here while they are still serving members of that visiting force. I ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to consider that possibility when he is giving consideration to the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am very sorry, and apologise to the Home Secretary for the fact that I was not in my place when he said, I understand, that he was going to give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, but I was very glad to hear of that. It seems to me that this Amendment is intended to enshrine a principle which I am sure is as dear to the heart of the Home Secretary, as it is to the hearts of all of us on this Committee. I refer to the principle which was laid down in that famous decision by Lord Mansfield in Somersett's case, when he said that a person might come to this country as a slave, but he ceased to have the status of slavery when he came here, and automatically become free and entitled to habeas corpus.
The principle here is precisely the same. Whatever may be the status of American soldiers or forces of another country who come to this country as Service personnel, the matter is quite otherwise with persons who come to this country in a civilian status. They must have the same rights under English law as the slave Somersett had in Lord Mansfield's time, or as any other civilian, whether a British subject, a person of no nationality, or an alien might have. Therefore, I think that the Home Secretary is undoubtedly doing right in ensuring that this famous and historical principle of our law is continued and adapted in this new framework.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure that you personally shared my pleasure, Sir Charles, at the reference by the last speaker to the first Scotsman who was Lord Chief Justice of England. I fully had in mind the great monuments of our legal system to which the hon. Member referred.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) raised a new aspect of the problem. I am sure he will not mind when I say that I want some time to consider the point he has raised, and I certainly shall do so.
Coming to the main points regarding the Amendment, I promised that I would explain to the hon. and learned Member the difficulties at the moment. I am sure he will appreciate them. On the drafting of the Amendment, I want to ensure that it should refer to members of a force and not merely to civilians. But there is another point. We need not discuss niceties, but I think he will appreciate that it is necessary not only to amend Clause 2, but also Clause 3; otherwise, the person in question would be excluded both from the jurisdiction of the court martial of the visiting force and, in Clause 3 cases, from our own courts also, which is something I do not think the hon. and learned Member had in mind. He will also appreciate that the term "conscripted" does lack precision when one has to consider the question of reservists and the like.
Another point I want to cover is to make a reliable and practical distinction between proper and improper enlistment into visiting forces. The hon. and learned Member and everyone in the Committee will appreciate that we might have a case concerning a Rhodes scholar. I do not know the age limits, but that is the sort of case I have in mind—someone receiving education in this country. It might be not only proper but highly suitable that he should carry out his military training by being attached to a unit here. I want to consider that sort of case. Another case I have in mind is that of a person who is a national of another country but living here, who might either want to fulfil his military training or a period of training on reserve by being attached to a visiting force.
9.30 p.m.
I do not think these are far-fetched ideas, and I should not be happy in my own mind unless I had really considered them. I have considered this already, and, as I say, I should like to give it further consideration, because it may be that one has to introduce the conception of consent, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that, to do that with any propriety and efficacy, it has to be very carefully drafted indeed.
I have wearied the Committee with these reasons only to show the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have considered this point, and not to put him off merely for the sake of doing it. I should be grateful if he would give me an opportunity to consider the matter further, and withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I was not vain enough even to imagine that I could draft a satisfactory provision to deal with something as intricate as this, and I drafted the Amendment merely to raise the point. I am most grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, which I accept gracefully, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The next Amendment I call is that in page 2, line 37, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Paget: This Amendment is consequential on my Amendment in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "deemed," to "in," in line 35. I do not know whether you will allow me to deal with them both at once, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: I did not realise that. I had not selected that one. I thought the earlier one stood by itself. The only criticism that I had of it was of its grammar—but otherwise I had not selected it. I think that the Amendment in line 37, the Amendment in line 38, and the Amendment in line 42, are all on the same point.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent any person alleging that at the date of the sentence he was not a person subject to the jurisdiction of that court.
I think I can put the point, and then the Home Secretary will tell us whether he feels that the previous Amendment


is necessary. The point of this Amendment, I think, explains itself. Whilst this Clause provides that we must assume the propriety of the actions and sentences of these visiting forces, we certainly ought not to assume their jurisdiction which is given to them by this Bill, and, therefore, it should always be open to a man to say, "I was brought before this court. I was
sentenced by the court. That is true enough, but I was not a person who fell within the definition of 'a member of the visiting forces or of the civilian personnel attached thereto'." Otherwise anybody could be brought before those courts—any citizen of this country—and, once he was sentenced, could not allege that he was not a person subject to the jurisdiction.
It may be that these words are superfluous, but I think it is very necessary to say that it shall always be open to the person to say, "I was an ordinary citizen of this country"—or "an ordinary visitor to this country"—"I was not within the jurisdiction of this court." When the Polish forces were in this country, some rather difficult habeas corpus applications occurred, and I myself think it is necessary to make this clear beyond doubt.

Mr. S. Silverman: Let me, first of all, draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to the fact that if the Amendment were made the Clause would be in direct conflict with Clause 11 (1) which gives to the visiting forces or the commander of the visiting forces the right to issue a certificate saying who is or who is not a person within the jurisdiction under Clause 2.

Mr. Paget: There is a Government Amendment down to it.

Mr. Silverman: I know there is a Government Amendment to it. I mean as at present drafted. With the Government Amendment the question arises whether the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is any longer necessary.
Before the Committee can fully judge whether this Amendment ought to be accepted it is necessary to consider what subsection (3) does. Subsection (3) is really an evidential subsection: it goes to what it is necessary to prove, and what shall be accepted as proven without the necessity, or indeed the possibility, of proof. It does some very surprising

things, and it is necessary to consider them before we can possibly consider the merits of the Amendment.
In the circumstances of the subsection
the said service court"—
the court that has passed the sentence under which a man may be incarcerated in a British jail—
shall be deemed to have been properly constituted.
Why should it be deemed? It is a thing perfectly capable of quick proof. The person sentenced may be a person to whom my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would apply; a person who was never subject to the jurisdiction at all; and he may come along and say, "The court which sentenced me was not properly constituted, even under the law of the sending country. The court ought to have had three members, whereas it had only two. The court ought to have had officers of certain rank, but the officers who constituted the court were not of that rank. The court was improperly constituted under the law of the sending country."
Why should he not be allowed to say so, and to prove it if he could? The Clause prevents him from saying so. The Clause says that once the sentence has been passed, though improperly passed, though passed by a court which, being improperly constituted, had no jurisdiction, even under this Bill; it cannot be challenged if the Clause is left unamended, and it must be deemed that the court which was not properly constituted was in fact properly constituted.
I can understand that kind of provision where the thing to be proved may be a troublesome thing to prove. But this is not troublesome. It is quite easy to say what the court ought to be in order to be properly constituted and, if challenged, whether it was or was not so constituted. I do not say it should have to be proved where it is not challenged, but where the man sentenced has challenged it, why should he not be able to prove the contrary if he can? Why should we go so far as to presume that because somebody has passed sentence he therefore has power to do so?
The subsection goes on:
and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of that court and in accordance with the law of that country.


Suppose it plainly is not. Why should we pass legislation to prevent the competence of the court, the jurisdiction and whether what was done was done in accordance with the law of the sending country, from being challenged if it can properly be challenged?
It is in the light of those considerations that I commend this Amendment. I had put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (3), but it has not been called and I therefore cannot ask the Committee to delete this subsection now. It is a very important subsection, and if we are to have this kind of thing we ought to have some such Amendment as my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, to enable things not rightly done not to be supported without the capacity of challenge of any kind.

Sir Frank Soskice: May I add one or two words in support of the pleas made by my hon. Friends? I am not sure what kind of proceedings in the United Kingdom courts are contemplated under the subsection, but I suppose that proceedings which would fall within its scope would be, for example, a civil action brought by a person who had been in prison pursuant to a decision of a service court of a visiting force and who was seeking to challenge the validity of the actions of those who imprisoned him.
An hon. Member has said that habeas corpus proceedings might be the same kind of case. If that is the kind of case, I would urge that the validity of the sentence should not, in fact, be conclusively assumed by reason of the fact that the person was sentenced by the court. That would be exposing a number of persons to dangers to which they ought not to be exposed.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, that, clearly, we must have some provision which would prevent unnecessary proof being furnished of the constitution of a service court of a visiting force, and that kind of thing, so as to cut out unnecessary procedure and evidence, but surely it would be sufficient for that purpose if the subsection provided, in effect, that the validity of the sentence, and so on, should be assumed unless the contrary was shown.
As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out in his speech, and I

respectfully venture to support what he said in that respect, if we leave subsection (3) in the form in which it is at present, that is to say, the proof being conclusive, it is prima facie in conflict with the Government's Amendment to Clause 11, with regard to the conclusiveness of a certificate furnished under subsection (1) of that Clause. I hope that the Home Secretary will think that there is some force in these contentions, or that the Solicitor-General, if he is to reply, may be able to give some simple answer which we have overlooked on this side of the Committee. If there is such an answer, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will point it out.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): This is a complicated subsection, and I think that the interest shown in it indicates that it has been carefully considered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). The debate on it has covered a field somewhat wider than that envisaged by the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I would like to deal with the point raised in his Amendment first, before going on to answer the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
The effect of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is, if I understand it correctly from what he said, to ensure that it shall be open to a person to challenge the jurisdiction of the service court. Clause 2, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, only applies to members of a visiting force and others who are not citizens of this country or of our Colonies nor ordinary residents of the United Kingdom, but who are, for the time being, subject to the service law of that country.
I think I can safely assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the words that he desires to add to this subsection will become superfluous if the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend to Clause 11 is accepted by the Committee. If that Amendment is accepted it makes it clear that the person concerned cannot be shut out from asserting that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the service court.
9.45 p.m.
We have down Amendments to Clause 11, in page 9, line 40, to leave out from "be," to the end of the line, and to insert:
sufficient evidence of the fact so stated unless the contrary is proved
and in page 10, line 26, to leave out "conclusive evidence of that fact," and to insert:
sufficient evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.
When these Amendments are explained the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton will see that we give the person concerned the right of showing that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the service court of the country sending the visiting force.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) goes wider than that and says, "Why should we deem the court to have been properly constituted? Should not it be open to the person concerned to come to the courts of this country and challenge the constitution of the Service court of the country sending the visiting forces?" The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend made much the same point. The answer is that once one comes to the conclusion, whichever way it may fall, that the individual is a member of a visiting force one will not really be complying with the spirit and letter of the N.A.T.O. Agreement if one gives that member of the visiting force, who is, ex-hypothesi, subject to the Service law of that country, a remedy over into the courts of this country.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne talks about the man not being able to question whether the court has been properly constituted, but the man would have the same rights of challenging it as would any other member of the force of that country. The hon. Member knows that under the law relating to courts-martial in this country a person who is subject to Army law can challenge the constitution of the court and question it without going to the ordinary court or even to the court-martial appeal court.
All the remedies will be open, under the law of the country sending the visiting force of which the individual is a member, once it is determined that he is subject to the Service law of that country. It seems to me to be right that once we have determined that question in that way the man's remedies should be

under the law of that country and not in the English courts.
I think that is the answer to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite. The man has his remedies under the Service law of his country when it is established that he is a member of that force. It will be open to him as a result of our Amendments tabled to Clause 11 to challenge the certificate which asserts that he is a member of that force. He is not prevented by anything in this Clause from asserting—it is a very important issue—that he is not subject to the Service law of the country sending the visiting force.
I hope I have satisfied all hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite and that in the circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Northampton will withdraw his Amendment, bearing in mind that we shall have a further opportunity to consider the issue on Clause 11.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not succeeded in satisfying me. I understood him to say that in principle he entirely agrees with what my Amendment says but he considers it unnecessary and superfluous because it will be dealt with by his Amendments to Clause 11. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but I am not sure that he is. What Clause 11 provides is at present that a certificate should be conclusive as to whether a man is a member of the forces or not. The Amendment provides that a certificate should no longer be conclusive if the contrary is shown, but on the other hand the Clause which we are dealing with provides that where a man has been sentenced within the jurisdiction of the court, it shall be assumed that no certifiate there will arise.

The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has misread Clause 2 (3). It says that
Where any sentence has, whether within or outside the United Kingdom, been passed by a service court of a country to which this section applies upon a person who immediately before the sentence was passed was subject to the jurisdiction of that court in accordance with this section …
there is nothing in the subsection to say he is deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court. Now with the Amendment to Clause 11 there is nothing saying that the certificate shall be conclusive and, therefore, that always remains the issue


to be determined. I hope I have put the matter right.

Mr. Paget: Supposing the person who has been sentenced is in gaol and he applies for a writ of habeas corpus. There is no certificate one way or the other as to whether he is a member of the forces. Does not Clause 2 (3) impede that application?

The Solicitor-General: I can answer that question quite shortly. I do not think that the latter part of subsection (3), which deals with the matters which are to be deemed, namely, that the court is properly constituted or that the sentence is in accordance with the law of the country, can arise, once it is established that the person upon whom sentence was passed was subject to the jurisdiction of the court at the time immediately before the sentence was passed.

Mr. Paget: I think probably that is so, but my Amendment was put down before the Amendment to Clause 11, and as an extra precaution. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really feels that that precaution is not necessary I will withdraw it.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I say at once that for my part I am quite satisfied with the explanation which the Solicitor-General has given about the point which my hon. and learned Friend raised, but I am not satisfied with his argument on the point that I raised. What he says about my point is that, provided a man who has been sentenced was immediately before the sentence, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of the court, then there is no reason why the constitution of the court, its jurisdiction or its sentence as passed under the law of the sending country should be open to any more challenge than it would be in the case of a soldier in our own Forces before a court martial here.
There I agree, but the point is that we are dealing here with people who are perhaps many thousands of miles away from their own country and from their civilian courts, and our machinery and our police forces are to be used in order to carry out some at any rate of those sentences.
In the case of a member of our own forces, if he is charged before a court which is not properly constituted, or if he is charged before a court which is properly constituted but the court passes

upon him a sentence not justified by the law of our own country, then it is perfectly true that the person may rely upon his right of appeal under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, but he is not bound to; he can go to the civil court.
It is one of the most important principles of our own constitutional law that the military courts are not conclusive, and that if they exceed their jurisdiction or are not properly constituted under the law of the service within which they are operating the man can appeal to the civil court by way of mandamus, writ of prohibition or of habeas corpus, or in a variety of other ways so as to ensure that the civil law, at any rate in peacetime, remains supreme.
All that I am suggesting is that this subsection, as it is drawn, takes away from a person the right to challenge any of those things in any civil court. He cannot do it in the courts of his own country for reasons of practicability. There is no reason why even the case which the Solicitor
-General has illustrated should be beyond challenge in the courts. The man ought to have the protection of some civil court, and since he is in our country and being incarcerated in gaol perhaps by our police and prison forces, obviously the convenient court is the civil court available to him in our country.
Nobody is suggesting that anything else should be challengeable in those courts except the question, if it is challenged, whether the service really was a court to which we intended to give jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction which was exercised was no more than the jurisdiction which we intend, by this Measure, to confer upon it. That is all. We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the information which we were given, but I suggest that it failed to cover the point which I have made and which would give to a person within Clause 2 the protection of any civil court. We must rely, in those circumstances, simply and solely on the service courts, which our own soldiers would not have to do.

Sir F. Soskice: I thank the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for the explanation which he gave and which has entirely satisfied me, subject to one very slight point. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so good as to say


he would consider it. Suppose there is a person who is, ex concessis, a member of the visiting force whose military code provides for his being sentenced to a period of six months for an offence. Suppose by some accident, misunderstanding, or some other reason, he is sentenced to a period of 18 months. As the subsection reads at the moment, there will be no way of his challenging the sentence. He could not sue out a habeas corpus. He would have to do the 18 months. I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to give further consideration to the point whether, entirely in accord with what he has said as to the comity of law, he would take out the particular words which provide that the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court.

The Solicitor-General: I find it difficult to accept the proposition that where an error of that sort has occurred in connection with a service court of the country sending a visiting force to this country there would be no way under the service law of that country of getting that error corrected. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, for instance under the law relating to the Canadian forces, there would be ways of putting it right.
The principle one has to recognise here is that, if one is to carry out this agreement in relation to the later Clauses giving jurisdiction over persons who are subject to the service courts, one cannot, at the same time, say that there shall be recourse to the courts of this country where anyone can challenge whether the service court of the visiting forces has not exceeded its jurisdiction or been improperly constituted.
One has to decide one way or the other. If it is a member of the visiting force, he must have his remedies if an error takes place under the service law and, indeed, the civil laws of the country to which that person belongs. We should reach an impossible situation if there were recourse to the civil courts of the country in which the visiting forces for the moment happened to be.
10.0 p.m.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the position which would arise if our forces were in some country on the other side of the Channel. It would create a position of the greatest

complexity if the sentences imposed by our courts-martial—for which there is a good deal of machinery for seeing that they act properly—could be brought before a foreign court on the question as to whether the court was properly constituted and the sentence properly passed. Therefore, much as I appreciate the point and the difficulties involved, there is no choice but to adhere to the present structure of the Bill as contained in this Clause.

Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Gentleman was highly successful in convincing my two hon. Friends that I was wrong. Now he has been highly successful in convincing me that they were wrong. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out from "section," to "if," and to insert "the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
The Clause gives certain powers to the Army Council, to the Admiralty and to the Air Council which are necessary powers to give to somebody if effect is to be given at all to this Clause. Therefore, I am not quarrelling with the Clause which gives them that power. What I am suggesting in my Amendment is that if our own forces under our own control are to be put in operation on the initiative of any authority of ours, it is much better that the authority which gives that sanction to the use of our machinery should be the Home Office rather than a service authority.
I can see that there may be two views about this because ex hypothesi we are dealing with members of the Armed Forces and by a parallel reasoning one thinks automatically of the Air Council, the Army Council and the Admiralty in such a connection. Since, however, what we are doing is to use our forces in order to make people in our territory subject to other people's courts, it is much better that the authority to do so should be a civil authority and not a Service authority.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the hon. Member will not add this additional labour to my duties, and I hope that, apart from that, I may convince him that it would be a difficult course to take.
As the hon. Member said, and I am quite sure that he appreciates the position, the object of subsection (5) of the Clause is to enable the Service police to assist the Service police of the visiting force in arresting persons who have committed offences against the law of the sending country. I want to make it clear—I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates it, but I am sure he will agree it is important that it should be made clear—that there is no application to the civil police, and it is undesirable that there should be. This is merely a Service matter.
The difficulty is that the Service police are under the control of the Admiralty, the Army and the Air Council and, of course, not of myself. Even if there were not another difficulty, which I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate in a moment, that would make the matter administratively very difficult indeed.
The other difficulty is that the hon. Member has impinged upon one of the few mystical conceptions that still remain in the prosaic realms of administration, because he has said in his Amendment:
the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Secretaries of State, as the hon. Member will remember, are manifold but
indivisible, and two of the Departments that he has mentioned are also headed by Secretaries of State. It would cause administrative confusion if we were to take this step.
The broad matter is that I think the Committee would agree that the control of Service police is better in the hands of the Service Departments and that it would be very difficult for me to come in and exercise this control. Therefore, while again appreciating the importance that the hon. Member attaches to the matter—and I am sure the whole Committee will agree with him in attaching importance to such assistance—I ask him not to press the point, because I do not see the administrative answer to the riddle.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am always willing to be accommodating if anything like reason can be shown, and perhaps, if the other anomalies that we have been upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with had been capable of even that degree of explaining, we might have got on a little faster. I do

not desire to press the point further upon the Committee, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Fletcher: I want to say just one word about the Clause before we part with it, partly because it is the only opportunity I shall have of saying a word about an Amendment which I put down on the Order Paper but which has not been selected.
Clause 2, of course, is the Clause which enables foreign service courts to function in this country and is the Clause which legalises them. One of the curious things, it seems to me, that we are doing by legalising these foreign service courts and the sentences which they may impose is that we may be thereby legalising sentences of a kind which have long been abolished in this country and which may still be retained in other countries but which here are regarded as barbaric and archaic.
I notice, for example, that in the agreement there is a provision in article VII, paragraph 7, which bears on this, because it provides that.
A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving State by the authorities of the sending State if the legislation of the receiving State does not provide for such punishment in a similar case.
I understand that article to deal with the position which would arise if we abolished capital punishment in this country. The Home Secretary and other hon. Members will be aware that in the last Parliament a Measure was carried for the abolition of capital punishment. You will remember it, Mr. Thomas, and if it had not been for an opposite vote in another place, we should by now have abolished capital punishment in this country. Many of us hope that that may still be the case before long.
I ask the Home Secretary this question: in that event, what is there, as was certainly contemplated by this N.A.T.O. agreement, to make quite sure that other countries with visiting Forces here, who still retain the death sentence, shall be unable to carry out the death sentence in this country? As I see it, there is nothing in the Bill at present to implement the clear provisions of article VII (7) of the Agreement. I am sure the


Home Secretary is following the point I am making, and it seems to me that it is a point which ought to have been dealt with in Clause 2. It was certainly one of the objects of the Amendment which I put down to Clause 2, page 2, line 27, to insert the words
other than a sentence not permitted by the laws of the United Kingdom.
That Amendment was not called, and all I can do is to put the point to the Home Secretary as forcibly as I can in the hope that, at a later stage of the Bill, if he concedes my point, he will himself introduce an Amendment to give effect to something which, it seems to me, quite clearly should be in the Bill, pursuant to the agreement.
It also seems to me that by parallel reasoning, precisely the same argument should apply in the case of punishments, such as flogging, which have been abolished under our Army Act and our military and naval Services code. They have been abolished on the ground that they are barbaric punishments which are offensive and obnoxious to modern standards.
Is it nevertheless intended that one of the things we are to do in the Bill is to allow foreign service courts to impose sentences of that kind and have them carried out in this country? Is that the intention?—because that is certainly the way in which I read the consequences of the Bill as it stands. It may be the intention that that should be so, but if so I am surprised, and I should have thought it was something which ought not to be in the Agreement and which ought not to be sanctioned by the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I wish briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said. Of course, the view can be taken that once we have decided to give jurisdiction to a foreign court in respect of certain persons, then we may wash our hands of the whole matter and say that anything done which we do not like has nothing whatever to do with us, that it is within the law of the sending country and that we need not bother our hearts, minds, souls, or consciences about it.
That is a possible view to take, but I should have thought it equally possible and more sympathetic to our way of looking at things to take another view, the

view that we will give to foreign courts and foreign law whatever is necessary to enable them to carry out the agreement that we have made with them, but in exercising their jurisdiction they should not be allowed, on our soil, within our territory, to do things that would be morally repugnant to our own laws or to the public conscience of our own country.
A point has been made about offences which are only offences because of laws about racial discrimination. I do not know what is to be done about that. I think that everyone accepted the principle of the point made. My hon. Friend has now spoken about the kinds of punishment. He has mentioned corporal punishment. One can recollect others. There used to be what was called field punishment No. 1, which we have very rightly abolished. There is the question of capital punishment.
The laws of all countries are not the same. I should have thought it intolerable to us to have penalties inflicted in our territory for offences when we would not ourselves tolerate the infliction of such a penalty on our own forces. My hon. Friend is perfectly right about that.
I wish to say one other thing about the Clause as a whole. Almost everybody who spoke on Second Reading, including, I think, the Home Secretary himself, said that this was a difficult and complicated Measure that would require the most careful examination in Committee. Many of us welcomed that statement. On my side if the House we hoped that we would have an adequate opportunity in Committee of dealing with the matter Clause by Clause and line by line in order to ensure two things: one, that what we were doing was sufficient to make practicable the implementation of the defence arrangements which alone give rise to a Bill of this kind; two, to see that it did no more.
Clause 2 is probably the most important Clause in the Bill. I do not think that the Committee will feel that we have had a proper opportunity of examining it line by line and principle by principle. Therefore, one has to do it now in this complicated way on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Many of us would have preferred to deal with the points separately and for the Committee to have had an opportunity of saying yea or nay about them specifically one by one.


But since the Amendments were not called, one can only do it in this way.
I should like to have heard a discussion, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman now to give us some answer, about why we need extend any of these powers to cover persons who are not members of visiting forces. Everyone can see the necessity of having some such powers as these if we are to have visiting forces at all, and everyone can see that if such powers are given they must cover the members of those forces. But why in the world should they cover anybody else? They do not in the case of our own forces.
Who are these persons? I am talking now about Clause 2 (3). Who are these persons who are subject to a foreign service law without being members of the foreign service concerned? We have had no explanation of any kind. During the Second Reading debate, there was a lot of discussion about the definition in the Clause of someone who is called a civilian component of such a force. The definition is hardly adequate. There were Amendments to make it more adequate. The Amendments were taken out of the actual agreements that have been made. We wanted to see them in the Clause.
We had no opportunity of moving them, but perhaps even now, before the Committee adds the Clause to the Bill, we can have some explanation of them. I should have thought that we should have done well, in giving these powers, to make certain that they apply to members of the visiting force and to nobody else. But if one feels compelled to go beyond those strict limits and enable the Clause to cover persons who are not actually members of the visiting force, then one ought very carefully and specifically to define who and what these persons and categories are.
The Clause does not do it. I do not know whether I carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me, but in its present form I think that the Clause goes far beyond what is necessary to give effect to the defence arrangements out of which the Bill arises. I think that it even goes beyond the terms of the actual arrangements which are said to be those to which the Bill is said to give legislative force.
The Committee ought to be very careful about these matters. We are now extending powers without any guarantee,

or indeed very much hope, of any real reciprocity. We are doing it in an unlimited and unrestricted way and applying these powers to a large number of undefined and, as far as I can see, undefinable persons. I hope that unless we obtain a satisfactory explanation on all these points from the Home Secretary, the Committee will refuse to add this Clause to the Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to deal, I hope with reasonable brevity, with the points which have been raised. On the first point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) it would not only be possible for this House—because everything is possible for Parliament—to change the law about capital punishment, but it would also be possible for Parliament to legislate, with regard to the agreement, that capital punishment should not be carried out.
On the broader point that the hon. Member raised, namely, the question of putting into force punishments of which we might not approve, the general difficulty which one has to meet is that the terms of the agreement leave the question of offences committed by service personnel to the law of the sending country. If the hon. Member will allow me to do it in this way, however, I should like very much to see in print the remarks that he made and to consider them. I promise that I will do that, because it may be that there are more nuances to what he has advanced than I appreciate at the moment.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about persons other than uniformed personnel, I should remind him that it is possible, just as it might be with regard to our own military arrangements, that the law of the sending country may give service courts and authorities power over persons who may not be uniformed members of the forces. Therefore we have really three categories of persons which in ordinary language may be called uniformed men, camp followers and civilians. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising these points, and again, I should like to consider them when I have had the advantage of seeing them in print and fully examining them.
With that assurance I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow us to add this Clause to the Bill.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The Home Secretary must surely have had ample time to consider the object of this Bill. I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The only logical action after what the Home Secretary has told us is that he should withdraw this Clause now, until he has had time to consider its extremely serious implications. They are so serious that one could take up a great deal of the time of this Committee in elaborating and working out the intentions of Clause 2 (2, b).
Putting it in a sentence, he might appreciate the fact that it is not only Clause 2—particularly subsection (2, b)—which hurts the sensibilities of many of the people of this country, but the whole Bill. It is an absolute outrage upon the sensibilities of proud Britishers. He should have considered the matter before the Bill was placed before the Committee.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTION, AS RESPECTS CERTAIN OFFENCES, OF TRIAL BY UNITED KINGDOM COURTS OF OFFENDERS CONNECTED WITH VISITING FORCE.)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out from "force," to "and," in line 19.
The words that would be left out are:
or a member of a civilian component of such a force".
I do not need to occupy the time of the Committee long on this matter because I covered some parts of it in the speech which I made on Clause 2. The Clause as a whole is the one that restricts the jurisdiction of our courts. The previous Clause gave jurisdiction to the service courts of the sending countries and this Clause correspondingly deprives our courts of jurisdiction in these cases.
I suggest that the jurisdiction of our courts might be excluded in the case of members of a visiting force or even of camp followers, but not in the case of members of an undefined civilian component of such a force. I do not know whether members of the Committee have had time in the intervals of the Committee stage to look at this evening's newspapers. I have here the "Evening Standard," and

on the front page there appear these words:
G.I. accused of killing three Britons in smash. British lawyer defends him.
There is no objection to that.
Of course, I do not know if all that is true, but the allegation is that he drove a lorry at 55 miles an hour on a narrow road, collided with a car coming the other way, and killed all its occupants—three of them. He is now being tried for manslaughter, and I see he is to be adequately defended by a British lawyer on a charge of manslaughter.
I do not know, really, why in such a case a man should not be answerable to a British court. It is very difficult to understand why not, as British persons are giving evidence for the prosecution, and there may be persons giving evidence for the defence, too, when the turn of the defence comes, before an American court martial, and the witnesses, as distinct from the accused, are British citizens. There is nothing in the Bill to compel British citizens to give evidence in such circumstances before foreign courts. This may well not be done in many cases by reason of the reluctance of the relatives of the deceased persons, in matters arising out of these cases, decided in their own country not by their own laws and their own courts, but by foreign laws and by foreign courts.
But conceding, as one must do for the purposes of this Amendment, that it is right to do that in the case of a serving member of a foreign force, why in the world should we have to do it in the case of a civilian employed by the force? Why should not he, at least, be responsible in our courts for damage done in our territory contrary to our laws? Why is it necessary to clothe that man with this protection, and it is protection, otherwise it would not be demanded? Why should this protection be given, not merely to the members of the visiting forces, whom we have invited here, and to whom, therefore, we must give suitable facilities, but to all sorts of other persons?
I know that there is a definition Clause later—a Clause about "civilian components;" but it affords no kind of guidance to us. What it says is that if the sending country certifies on the passport that he is a member of a civilian component, and if some Department of ours—the Foreign Office or the Home Office? I do not know—agrees that it shall be so,


then it shall be so. There is something in the agreement about it, but the agreement is not incorporated in the Bill.
I do ask the Home Secretary to think carefully before he rejects the Amendment. If we must deprive our courts of jurisdiction in the case of members of visiting forces that we have invited here, and designated in Clause 1, let us leave the matter there, and not go beyond that point. There is no reason why we should.
There is no real justification for doing that, and if there is any foreign country that demands it, let us be bold enough—and might one say, even at this day in this century, British enough?—to say, "You are asking too much. We will not give it you. If you do not like it, go away." If such facilities are granted, we ought to be certain we do not go beyond the strict and rigid limits that are necessary.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The inclusion of these words in Clause 3 is even more serious than their inclusion in Clause 2. I object, as my hon. Friend did, to their inclusion in Clause 2, which has the effect of giving these foreign service courts jurisdiction over the civilian component of such forces. I object to the exclusion of such persons from the jurisdiction of our courts, as the Bill is drafted and works out in practice.
We find, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that there is reported in tonight's newspapers the case of an American soldier accused at a court martial of the manslaughter of a British subject and his two children. But there is no assurance within the framework of this Bill, as it now stands, that if an American soldier, or any other foreign service national, commits the offence of manslaughter for which he ought to be tried he will be tried for it at all. There is no guarantee about that.
Clause 2 gives the foreign service courts jurisdiction to try such offences but Clause 3 excludes the jurisdiction of our own courts. There is no certainty that such men will be brought to trial at all. Still less is there anything in the Bill which ensures that any such trial will be in public. It so happens that the court

martial of which I spoke is being held in public and the Press are there, but there is nothing in Clause 3, or under the Bill, to ensure that if a foreign service court exercises the jurisdiction which Clause 2 gives it the trial will be held in public.
It might be held in camera under the French, Belgian or Dutch systems of law, which are totally different from our own. It might be held in circumstances which do not give the British public, or the relatives of British citizens killed or injured in that way, any satisfaction that there will be an inquiry at which they can be represented to elicit the truth of the matter. I regard that as one of the worst features of the Bill.
For that reason I support the Amendment, which will at any rate go some way to reducing that vice. It may be that a case can be made out for giving foreign courts-martial jurisdiction over the members of their forces, but why on earth should such jurisdiction be extended to a vague, indeterminate, indefinite body of civilian aliens who accompany such forces?
I hope that the Home Secretary will see the force of the argument that whereas foreign troops have to take part in manoeuvres and accidents may arise as a result, totally different circumstances obtain in the case of civilian components. Why should they be given the benefit of having their crimes tried by a foreign court, if tried at all? Why should the jurisdiction of our courts be ousted in those circumstances? I hope that the Home Secretary, in the further consideration he is going to give to this matter, will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I would put the case for this Amendment a great deal more narrowly than either of my hon. Friends. I cannot see why it is necessary to restrict the jurisdiction of our courts to a much greater extent than is provided for in the agreement. The agreement provides for exclusive jurisdiction in only two cases.
Where the offence is an offence against the law of the sending country but not of the receiving country, then there is exclusive jurisdiction for the sending country. If, on the other hand, it is against the law of the receiving country and not of the sending country, then there is exclusive jurisdiction for the receiving country.
But in all other cases there is concurrent jurisdiction, and in all the cases which are set out in Clause 3, which excludes the jurisdiction of the British courts altogether, the agreement provides that the jurisdiction shall be concurrent. It is quite true that the agreement provides that in these cases—although (a), (b) and (c) are a little wider than the agreement—broadly speaking the primary jurisdiction shall rest with the sending country. In those cases one probably has in mind America.
But why should we go beyond that and remove all jurisdiction from our courts save in the exceptional circumstances where the sending country notifies that it is not going to prosecute and the relevant official under subsection (3) gives his certificate, I cannot think.
I feel there may be a case for doing so in respect of actual members of the visiting services. We have had our attention drawn to a manslaughter case. I do not agree with my hon. Friends entirely on that. I feel that where a foreign soldier is driving on duty and that position arises it is better and more convenient for everybody if he is tried by his own courts, even if that involves British witnesses giving testimony in an American court martial.
Where it is a civilian merely attached to the American forces, or any other visiting forces, however, surely it is far more desirable that the trial then should take place in our own courts. I cannot believe that if a civilian driver, some chauffeur employed by the American forces, killed two or three British subjects and we approached the Americans and said, "This is the sort of case in which we feel we ought to try the man" the Americans would cause the slightest difficulty. But here we debar our courts from such jurisdiction.
So far as operating the agreement is concerned, there is no difficulty. In the ordinary case coming within this Clause the Attorney-General cannot start proceedings in our courts and leave the visiting forces to start proceedings in theirs. The matter can be dealt with perfectly well administratively and it seems quite gratuitous to go beyond the agreement and exclude jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General: I will, if I may, deal in order with the three different presentations of what is rather

the same point. First, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is really objecting to the civilian component being included at all. All I can say about that is that the agreement quite clearly puts the civilian component—we are not discussing for the moment exactly what that means, that is another matter—upon the same basis as military personnel. After all, I cannot do more than accept the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) just now. So far as the military personnel are concerned, unless we are going to repudiate the agreement, we must apply it to them.
10.45 p.m.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I would say that that must be the answer, that the last Government entered into this agreement and we are loyally honouring their word. We cannot see any justification for any differentiation between the two cases. That is the broad point on why the civilian component should be included. The answer, briefly, is that the Government of this country has agreed that it should be.

Mr. S. Silverman: With great respect, I cannot quite follow the first part of that answer. I feel certain that if the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, when asked to advise on the agreement, had come to the conclusion that the agreement made by the previous Government was in any particular unjustifiable, he would have had no difficulty in reopening negotiations and legislating for a better arrangement.
It is no answer, on the first occasion which the House of Commons has had of looking at these matters, to say, "Never mind how right or how wrong it may be or how justifiable or unjustifiable, you, the previous Government, did it, and therefore everyone is bound." If he wants to defend the agreement on its merits, that is one thing, but he cannot defend or justify it on the ground that someone else did it.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member had been kind enough to wait, I was about to say that that was the first reason and I think it is a good one.

Mr. Silverman: It is a very bad one.

The Attorney-General: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a matter


of this kind I feel I have solid support from the right hon. Gentleman I see opposite me at the present moment.

Mr. Ede: I stand by what I did, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to satisfy his own conscience, and mine is far too weak a conscience for him to rely on.

The Attorney-General: I will say no more about the first reason, which I think a lot of people will regard as a good one, but I do not agree that this is not a perfectly justifiable provision. In the case of our own Army Act we make a definite provision and provide for the application of military law to people who are not strictly military personnel.
We know that visiting forces, including our own, are likely to have people with them who are not citizens of the receiving country. They are for all practical purposes a part of the visiting forces. In those circumstances it does not seem in the least unreasonable that they should be covered.
As regards their content, I do not think it would be in order to say more than a word about that. The view we have taken so far, which I would commend to the Committee, is that if the Home Secretary is the person who decides, we shall be very safe there.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), while he did not object to the whole provision, was more specific and made the objection that there was no provision for public trial. I think we have to leave that to diplomatic means. We know what the present powers are and we have no reason to suppose that they will not continue.
If there is any reason to suppose that there is some hole-in-the-corner business going on, there are means of dealing with the situation; and, in fact, the situation is already being dealt with for, although it is entirely irrelevant to the Clause, the hon. Gentleman read from an evening paper the story about a trial. It is therefore difficult to understand why he should be apprehensive.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that courts martial of all N.A.T.O. countries are held in public?

The Attorney-General: I am saying that I find it difficult to believe that any

other country would not hold a court martial in public in this country—at any rate, more than once. I think we ought to be more realistic about these things.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said he was putting a much more narrow point, discussed the actual application of these provisions and, as this is a subject which we must all understand clearly, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I remind them how the thing works. If there is concurrent jurisdiction, the agreement lays down quite clearly what is to happen.
In the first place, whether we are dealing with a member of the forces or of a civilian component, under paragraph 3 of article VII of the agreement,
The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component …
This is what paragraph 3 (c) says:
If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable.
That is the duty under the Agreement, and if the State did not so notify, a breach of the international agreement would be committed.
There is the further provision that
The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular importance.
That covers the case where, for some reason or another, our Government consider that it ought to be regarded as a case where there should be a waiver of jurisdiction and that our courts should be allowed to try the case.
We are relying upon good will and co-operation between the authorities, and if there should be a case in which some very great public feeling is aroused, there is no reason at all why our authorities, who are in close touch with the visiting authorities, should not urge them to allow us to exercise jurisdiction. If we are to work together, if we are to have visiting forces in this country, we must rely upon close co-operation, and therefore we have this flexible arrangement.
It is not right to suggest that we ought to contemplate cases in which the visiting forces will claim jurisdiction and


then do nothing. One could create all sorts of cases; one could say, for instance, "What will happen if, as soon as the offence took place, they put the man in an aeroplane and sent him back to America?" We must assume that they will not do things like that, otherwise it is no good entering into international agreements. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when considering this question; we must assume that people will behave in a reasonable way.
Finally, may I remind the Committee that this provision does not apply only one way round. It also applies in our own case. A great deal has been said about what the public would like and would not like in this country, but may I remind hon. Members that the public would like to know that the Government have taken care to look after our own men when they go into other countries?

Mr. Strachey: Is there to be reciprocity on this? If there is, the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument applies, but only if there is reciprocity.

The Attorney-General: There is no reason to obtain reciprocity unless it is provided for here.

Mr. Paget: If the Attorney-General will forgive me saying so, he has not dealt with the primary point which I made. That is, that since the agreement provides for concurrent jurisdiction, why should we exclude our jurisdiction by this Clause. By purely administrative methods we can give the primary right to try to the visiting forces. I find it hard to see why we should go further than the agreement and exclude the jurisdiction of our courts altogether.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I am afraid I stopped short at that point. I thought it was not necessary to go further with the explanation. In comparing the agreement and the Clause, I ought to have added that, just as I said in the case of the agreement that there is provision for waiver, so if one looks at Clause 3 and turns to page 4 it will be found that in a case where, under paragraph 3 of Article VII of the agreement, the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction and so notifies the authority of the other State, then under Clause 3 (3) of the Bill there is provision that if the appropriate authority of the sending country notifies the Director of

Public Prosecutions, the Lord Advocate, or the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland then matters may be dealt with in the courts in this country.
With great respect, I thought that provided for the point once one accepts the proposition that where there is primary jurisdiction and there is to be a primary and secondary right, the primary right is within the discretion of the sending force, and it is its duty to notify if it is not intending to exercise jurisdiction.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 20 to 22.
This Amendment is designed to leave out subsection (1, a). On this occasion I want to make a quite narrow but important point. The Amendment is designed to eliminate from the Clause ousting the jurisdiction of the British courts offences committed by foreign service personnel in the course of their duties. The effect of Clause 3 is to oust the jurisdiction of the British courts where the offence is committed against foreign personnel, and where the offence is committed against the property of a foreign State.
I can see a considerable amount of force in the argument that where an offence is committed against a member of a foreign force in this country, or against the property of a foreign force, it may be well that in those cases the foreign service court should have jurisdiction. But the case is totally different where the offence is committed not against a foreigner or his country but against a British subject. It is that class of case which is really causing the greatest concern among those who are troubled about this Bill.
Therefore, I should like to exclude from Clause 3 any offence committed against a British subject, even though it is committed in the course of duty by a member of a foreign force. The only possible justification that the Home Secretary can have for putting that provision of the Clause in the Bill is that it was covered by the agreement. It goes very much further than the agreement, and in a very relevant particular.
11.0 p.m.
In the agreement, article VII, para. 3 contains these relevant words:
Offences arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.


I would not mind that so much—although I would not be very happy with it—but why must the Government on every conceivable occasion try and extend the language of this agreement to the detriment of British subjects? Why must they enlarge the ambit of these words to the much wider form of words where an offence is committed
in the course of duty as a member of that force?
Let me give an example. Take rape, for example, by a foreign soldier against a British girl. If one looks at the language of the agreement, nobody could possibly suggest that the offence of rape arose out of an act done in performance of official duty. But in the Bill there is reference to offences "committed in the course of duty." The Home Secretary demurs. Could it not be argued that rape was committed in the course of duty?

Sir D. Maxwell-Fyfe: There has been a Workmen's Compensation Act since 1897, and I think this phrase was used in it. Is the hon. Gentleman really arguing that someone who committed rape could say that he was acting in the course of his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act? I wish he would develop it; it is the most interesting argument I have heard for years.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Surely the Home Secretary has read the debate which took place in another place? The matter was argued there at great length by Lord Jowitt in C. 468 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place. Lord Jowitt said,
For instance, we all remember the case many years ago of the shocking incident at the Horse Guards at Whitehall where two girls were taken in, went in, or were lured in—"—

The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from a debate in another place?

Mr. E. Fletcher: I was.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then that is out of order.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I have done so before in accordance with a direct Ruling from one of your predecessors, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I will not quote the exact words. I will content myself by repeating that a very distinguished member of another place, an ex-Lord Chancellor,

having given this instance, went on to say it could well be argued that that offence arose in the course of duty because the accused were on duty at the time. Therefore, their offence could under this Bill be triable and only triable by an American court martial. Is that desirable?
Let no one think this argument is far-fetched. I would refer the Home Secretary and other hon. Members to what was said by another distinguished Lord in another place—Viscount Bridgeman—in c. 472 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place. Hon. Members who are interested can look it up. He did not think it was at all a far-fetched argument.
So far as I can judge from the arguments on which this Bill was based in another place, it was recognised that one of the consequences likely to flow was that under this Bill an English girl ravaged by an American or other foreign service man in this country might find that she had no chance of bringing the man to justice in a British court, but would have to have that case tried before an American or other foreign court martial.
Is that desirable? Is it desirable that it should even be possible? But it is possible. No one can imagine it desirable that a victim should in those circumstances be deprived of the right that she is clearly entitled to, of having the case tried by a British court.
Therefore, in all seriousness, I would ask the Home Secretary why it is considered necessary to have any doubt about the matter. Why should he not confine himself to the textual words of the agreement, which cannot give rise to doubt? Why use phraseology which is vaguer and wider, and which can give rise to doubt of that kind?

Mr. S. Silverman: I only wish to say one word because of the intervention of the Home Secretary, who seems to have remembered one half of a Clause in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and forgotten the other half. There are two things necessary—not one. The first is that it arises in the course of duty, and the other that it arises out of duty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) says both these requirements should be present if we are to exclude the jurisdiction of the British courts whereas under this Clause only one of them is necessary. There is


nothing laughable—there is nothing very amusing if the offence of rape is committed against one of our citizens by anyone, and it does not render it any more amusing if it is committed by a member of a foreign army. There is no reason why we should be amused. These things do occur, and when they do, they are not funny.
It is perfectly possible that such a thing might very well happen in the course of a man's duty, and if it did, then clearly it would not arise out of his duty. But what my hon. Friend is saying—and I think saying with overwhelming force—is that in offences which arise perhaps in the course of duty and do not arise in any conceivable sense out of that duty, there is no case for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of our courts.

Mr. M. Stewart: This is, I think, the only part of the Bill in which the power of the British courts to deal with the offence is set aside where the person suffering from the offence is a British subject. I think that we are all prepared to see the point of giving the visiting forces jurisdiction where the offence complained of entirely concerns them.
Apart from the kind of offence referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) I must ask the Attorney-General if he will consider the kind of situation to which I referred in the few remarks I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. Suppose a situation arises in which a number of ill-advised people throw stones at a building occupied by a visiting force, and the commander of the force orders the men under his command to move those people away, and they go out and perhaps carry out those orders recklessly and imprudently, and British subjects are injured and possibly killed.
I am not a lawyer, but in that case I should have thought that beyond any doubt it would be assumed that that offence was committed in the course of duty, and there would arise the very difficult question that sometimes arises about the acts of our own soldiers in Germany, whether a man was doing strictly what his duty required him to do, or whether he had acted recklessly or even maliciously far beyond what his duties required. It might create a very unpleasant situation between the United States and ourselves if something like that

were to happen and the American soldiers in question could not be brought before any British court.
I can see one reason for making such an arrangement: that already suggested by the learned Attorney-General, and that is that if we concede this to visiting forces here we can claim it for our own soldiers abroad. In certain circumstances and in some countries I would be happier to see those of our men who are charged with offences tried by British courts-martial rather than by the civilian courts of those countries.
It may be felt that by giving this concession we are buying something of value. If that is the argument I can understand it up to a point. I should like to know, however, if there is any other argument for this exclusion from British courts in regard to the trial of persons who have injured or killed British subjects. Is there any reason, other than reciprocity, to justify this arrangement?
As a layman among lawyers I should like to know what would be the position under this Clause if a member of a visiting force, possibly when in uniform but clearly off duty and in his free time in the evening—so far as a soldier can be said to have free time—becomes engaged in a brawl with a British subject, perhaps in a public house, and strikes and injures him. Would such an offence be dealt with in British courts or would the jurisdiction of British courts in such a case be excluded by the working of this Clause? I should imagine that the Clause means that such an offence would be triable in a British court but I should like to be reassured on that point.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have great pleasure in reassuring the hon. Gentleman to the extent of my own view. I cannot imagine that the view could be taken that the incident of the brawl in the public house would be in the course of duty. I am sorry if I gave a wrong impression to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) earlier. It was not the offence which gave rise to any amusement: I realise the seriousness of it.
It was rather the curious juxtaposition—which I think struck us all—of duty and rape, and I am sure that the hon. Member will not misunderstand what I said. The point that I had in mind was the kind of cases with which


he is very familiar, in which it is not only a question of "arising out of" his duty, but of whether a workman has been held to step out of the course of his duty by committing acts of an extraordinary character.
11.15 p.m.
We must go back to the more fundamental points to deal with the series of arguments which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has put before the Committee. The first point—which, of course, he recognises—is that we have to give effect to article VII (3) and to the words to which he has referred the Committee, namely,
offences arising out of any act or omission done in pursuance of official duty".
I have considered the point which he put, which is that the words
arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
are less wide than
in the course of duty as a member of that force.
I must confess I am totally unable to appreciate his argument, or its basis.
I must say in fairness to the argument that it had not occurred to me before he put it that it could be suggested. I will willingly look at it again, but I am afraid I should not be honest with the Committee if I did not give my present reaction, which is that, having heard his argument develop, I cannot see how it arises. However, I will willingly have a look at that point.
Then I think one ought to deal for a short time with "duty"—assuming now that the phrases are the same and we want to give effect to the agreement, which most of us do. Is it a good criterion? Should we adopt it as a criterion or not? That is a point we have to put to ourselves. I respectfully put it to the Committee that it is a good criterion.
I do not know if the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) would bear me out from his experience at the War Office, but speaking from my own personal experience and not from figures, I should have said that of the thousands of court martial proceedings which I have seen the vast majority concerned true Army Act offences. I think that is a correct recollection. That is

not to say there are not other offences but in selecting one's criterion one should establish the main category and the great majority would be true Army Act offences.
Then, when one considers what is the test that springs to one's mind from the point of view of the obligation and work of the officer commanding the forces, he is responsible for the general good behaviour and the state of his troops, but his primary responsibility is the way his troops behave and carry out their work when on duty, and the discipline maintained there. I ask hon. Gentlemen tonight, or before we receive this Bill again, to consider whether they can really envisage an alternative criterion.
I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East really admits that criterion. He would have liked to have made some inroads into it, but we have to take into account the other safeguards which arise in the Bill. Therefore, I do commend to the Committee the conception which was introduced and agreed to by our predecessors in office, of duty being taken as the test. I commend that, as I say, because I find it very difficult to find objections to it as a test, or to find a true alternative.

Mr. Ede: I cannot help thinking that the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) really does point to the way in which this matter could be solved. Surely we want both the considerations which are contained in the workmen's compensation provisions, stipulating not merely in the course of duty but arising out of duty.
My hon. Friend quoted the incident at the Horse Guards, but anyone who has ever mounted guard or been a sentry or has been appointed to look after a door that has been newly painted or to some other of the very high military duties that fall to the lower ranks, must know the problem that confronts him when a number of rather stupid females of all ages hang around and pass comments on his personal appearance and the way in which he walks from point to point and the way in which he stands at ease, and compare him with the Guards or some other people whom he, being a mere infantryman of the line, regards with the utmost contempt.
He knows the difficulty that confronts him and the way in which one thing leads to another. I will be quite frank. I have been a sergeant of the guard and I have been a sentry. This is not the confessional, but I have seen things happen—unknown to the officer of the guard.
Let us be quite certain of this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks very learnedly about the officer and his position, but it is the non-commissioned officer, the lance-corporal without pay and people like that, who are confronted sometimes with very difficult situations of the kind I have indicated, and with things which happen in the course of duty that do not arise out of duty.
That is the kind of thing with which my hon. Friends are concerned, and I think that, within the terms of the agreement, it ought to be possible to apply the criterion the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to apply in the middle of my hon. Friend's speech. I acquit him entirely of trying to make fun out of an offence, but in his suggestion he did raise a perfectly good point and it does indicate a way in which a solution may be found.
It would not really justify their being taken out of the jurisdiction of our courts, merely because a fellow says, "I was on duty at the time," because, after all, if he happens to be on active service it is astonishing how often he can be on duty when the military police want to "crime" him. I say that as one who has been a military policeman in his time. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is a practical point which deals with the kind of thing that can cause the utmost ill-feeling towards troops who happen to be stationed in a district, whether they are British or alien, when they do something which offends the general propriety of that district.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall willingly have a look at the words in the agreement and the words we have used, and consider the problem that has been raised.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On that assurance, confident as I am, knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he will look into the matter, particularly in view of what my right hon. Friend has said; and

being conscious that this is a real problem which may affect a great many people, and knowing that he does not want to go one whit beyond what the agreement requires him to, I will, expressing gratitude for the assurance, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out "had" and to insert "was."
This is a refinement of the same point. We begin by exempting from the jurisdiction of our own courts members of visiting forces. That having been done we go on to exempt the camp followers of such forces. Not content, we go a stage further, and include civilian component units attached to such forces. But in case there should, by some oversight, be anyone left out of the net and within the jurisdiction of our courts, we now have another class of person exempted.
Not merely need one not be a member, camp follower or member of a civilian component unit, but if one has any relevant association with the visiting forces then the jurisdiction of our courts is ousted. I should have thought that there is some limit to the extent to which we are prepared to oust our own jurisdiction for offences committed on our own territory. I do not know what "relevant association" is. Relevancy is usually defined as something that is associated with something else.
I am not sure that the words "relevant association" are not redundant. If it is relevant it is an association, and if it is an association it is relevant. It must mean somebody not covered by the previous definition; it is not someone who is a member, camp follower or member of a civilian component unit, but is someone else provided he is in some sort of contact. What sort of contact? What is the degree of association, because in some remote sense we all have some association with the visiting forces.
If we are to stick to the principle of not doing more than is actually required to give effect to the defence arrangements, out of which, and out of which alone, there arises any cause for the Bill, if there is to be any limit at all, I suggest that this category of persons in "relevant association" with the forces is a category which we might well keep


within the jurisdiction of our own courts, if only out of mercy for our judges by giving them something to deal with.

11.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I wonder if the hon. Member has considered the definition Clause, Clause 12? It says, in subsection (2):
References in this Part of this Act to a person's having at any time a relevant association with a visiting force are references to his being at that time a person of one or other of the following descriptions, that is to say,—

(a) a member of that visiting force or a member of a civilian component of that force;
(b) a person, not being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, but being a dependant of a member of that visiting force or of a civilian component of that force."

I very much hesitate to say so, but I believe that on this occasion the hon. Member may have missed something. The object of that is to prevent it being necessary to set out about 10 lines of print every time the expression "relevant association" appears in the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I am very much obliged, but I do not think that is correct. Members of visiting forces are already covered and so are civilian components. So, if we are to understand by "relevant association" only Clause 12 (2) we are left with dependents, and "relevant association" only means "dependent." What we are doing is to exempt not only forces, components and camp followers, but wives and children. Why in the world should we?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, I am afraid both of us have not got it right because the object of Clause 12 is that "relevant association" includes all those. Therefore, when we use "relevant association" in another place it means to say we are covering not only members of the forces or components but also any person
not being a citizen of the United Kingdom
and so on.
I may be wrong, but if I may say it first, the hon. Member may explain where I am wrong. One has to go back some thousands of years to the story we may remember hearing with the reference to
sackbut, psaltry, dulcimer and all kinds of musick.

A lot of others were mentioned. We remember sometime in our youth that being rendered as "Band as before." Instead of having to say what is meant every time we use this phrase, if we say "relevant association" and then look at the definition we find what it means.

Mr. Silverman: Without replying to the argument, I think I have made clear the point I want to make about that part of it.
What is clear now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has directed our attention to the definition Clause, is that whatever else "relevant association" means it includes the dependents of the members of visiting forces and of the members of the component civilian units. So, unless we adopt the Amendment I am proposing, not only will all the men be exempt from the jurisdiction of our courts but so also their wives and their children.
Why is it necessary to do that? The hon. and learned Gentleman has very lucidly drawn my attention to a great many definitions. He said nothing in justification of including wives within the exclusion from the jurisdiction of our courts.

The Attorney-General: I think again, although I am not quite sure, that the hon. Member has missed the target. Clause 3 (1, b) refers to the person against whom the offence has been alleged to have been committed and not to the person who committed it.

Mr. Silverman: I do not see why. What we are doing is to specify this class of person, namely the wives of persons who are already here, and say that if offences are committed against them then that is something with which our courts shall not be concerned. Again, I ask why?

The Attorney-General: It is true that what we are dealing with here is the kind of case where an offence is committed by a member of a visiting force against one of the other members of the force or against one of his dependents. It is in the agreement that if an American soldier, for example, is involved in some unfortunate matter in his married quarters, he should be tried by an American court and not by ours. I think there is a good deal to be said for that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from "country," to the end of line 36.
In view of the decision which the Committee has already reached, I do not want to take up further time on this point I want to leave out the words
or of a person having such an association as aforesaid.
I want to limit the exclusion of our jurisdiction to the other class and to leave out the reference to relevant association.

The Attorney-General: I do not think I can add anything to the discussion we have already had on this subject.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after "country," to insert:
or where within one month after the commission of the offence no proceedings to deal with the case under the law of the sending country have been commenced.
This Amendment is vital if justice is to be done. It is designed to secure that any crimes committed in this country whether by a member of the visiting service forces or not, are brought to justice. Here again my chief complaint is that the Bill goes much further than the agreement requires the Government to go.
The Agreement provides that in certain cases the American courts martial have exclusive jurisdiction, necessarily so where it is a matter affecting military discipline. Then there are cases in which, according to the Bill, there is concurrent jurisdiction between the American service courts and our own British courts. That is what the Bill says. In article VII, paragraph 3, of the agreement, it is stated:
In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:—
Then it says that the proper military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in certain cases where there is an offence against the person or property of the foreign army, or where the person involved commits an offence in the course of his duty. In other cases even though the offence is committed by members of the foreign army our own courts have the primary right.
After the reference to concurrent jurisdiction and the statement that one tribunal should have the primary right,

one would have expected to find that, if the tribunal which has the primary right fails to exercise that right, then the other tribunal which has concurrent jurisdiction could exercise that jurisdiction. Unhappily, there is no such provision in the Bill. What we find in the Bill is a different framework.
Clause 3 provides that the jurisdiction of the British court is ousted in all cases where, under the agreement, a foreign service court has the primary jurisdiction. There is then a provision that the foreign military authorities can, if they wish, waive their primary jurisdiction. There is also a provision that in certain cases the British court shall have jurisdiction if the Director of Public Prosecutions certifies that the foreign court does not propose to deal with the case.
This Amendment is designed to ensure that, where a crime is committed, at least one court—and only one—in the case of every crime shall bring the offender to justice; and I should have thought that that was not asking too much. Clause 2 confers jurisdiction on the foreign courts. Clause 3 ousts the jurisdiction of the British courts. There is nothing in the Bill—nor could there be—to compel the foreign tribunal to try a case.
What I am anxious to secure is that if the foreign tribunal fails to bring an offender to justice and fails to waive its right to do so, then that offence shall be tried and heard and determined in a British court. I am anxious to secure that for two reasons—both in order that the interests of justice may be served and the offenders brought to trial and in order that those more intimately affected—the victims—may have the satisfaction of seeing that justice is done.
That is the short and simple purpose which this Amendment seeks to achieve, and I think it will be conceded that unless there is such a provision in the Bill, there will be no guarantee that offences committed by members of foreign forces are in every case brought to trial. I believe it may well be that this is a casus omissus from the agreement. If so, it is all the more necessary that it should be dealt with, and, moreover, as the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General already appreciate, there is nothing in the agreement which is inconsistent with my Amendment.
They will also accept the view that the phraseology in the agreement, particularly in article VII, paragraph 3 (c), is highly ambiguous. It says,
If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable.
They may waive their jurisdiction. But I am concerned with the case in which they do not. They may want to make inquiries and to report to their own Government; there may be a number of circumstances which make it either impossible or undesirable for them to reach a conclusion about whether they will try the man.
The agreement provides that the authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State to waive this right, but, of course, there is no obligation upon them to waive it, and therefore it is not inconceivable that there will be circumstances in which an offence, perhaps a serious offence involving loss of life or injury to British subjects, goes untried or there is considerable delay before any trial takes place.
11.45 p.m.
Therefore my Amendment is designed to provide in such a case that if no proceedings have been brought to deal with the case under the law of the sending country within a month, our own courts shall be entitled to hear and determine the case. I suggest a month because that seems to be a reasonable interval between commission of the offence and initiation of proceedings.
I do not rigidly adhere to a month; the period could be six weeks or two months. I am only concerned to secure that after a court of primary jurisdiction has had a reasonable opportunity to try the case or to waive jurisdiction, if it declines to do one or the other, the British courts shall have jurisdiction to deal with the offence.

The Attorney-General: I should like to deal with this point explicitly. One has to bear in mind that under the agreement there is a definite obligation undertaken by both parties to the agreement to notify the authorities of the other party as soon as practicable if the party which

has primary jurisdiction decides not to exercise jurisdiction. In proceeding to enact legislation to enable us to ratify this agreement we must assume that the States concerned will behave in a proper and reasonable way. If we are going to consider the possibilities from the point of view suggested we must apply the principle of the pound of flesh.
With the greatest respect, the Amendment would be entirely nugatory if people are going to behave in that way, because it says, where
no proceedings to deal with the case … have been commenced.
All that would be necessary would be for them to begin proceedings technically and not to pursue them and the whole thing becomes nugatory. I do not take that example because I suggest they would do that; but if it is to be assumed that people are not going to comply with their obligations one is entitled to test the matter in that way.
Let us look at the matter the other way round. We have our forces in a distant country. Is it really desirable that we should make provision that if within a month a matter is not dealt with the other country is to have jurisdiction? I am not prepared to agree to anything of that kind.
This is a matter, as we see it, in which it will be necessary to have consultation and friendly arrangements with the authorities of the visiting forces. I would remind the Committee of what I have said, namely, that if we are to have visiting forces in this country we must be able to rely upon their behaving reasonably. I have little doubt that we shall be able to do so.
When we come to make arrangements with individual countries there are a number of points which we shall have to discuss and settle. I would hope that we shall be able to arrive at some arrangement with them for some kind of time limit. Under this Amendment, or any similar Amendment, it would be simple for a visiting force to take some technical step to defeat its object. It would be better to leave the matter to the good sense of those concerned.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget: I wish to draw attention to subsection (4), which states:
In relation to cases where the charge (by whatever words expressed) is a charge of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, or of aiding, abetting, procuring or being accessory to, or of being art and part in, the commission of an offence, paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if references in those paragraphs to the alleged offence were references to the offence which the person charged is alleged to have attempted or conspired to commit or, as the case maybe, the offence as respects which it is alleged that he aided, abetted, procured or was accessory to, or was art and part in, the commission thereof, and references in those paragraphs to persons in relation to whom, or property in relation to which, the offence is alleged to have been committed shall be construed accordingly.
This subsection Clause beats all limits for unintelligibility. Is there not some limit in the drafting of enactments?

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that, although accusations are sometimes made with some degree of fairness against those who have to draft these very difficult provisions in a great hurry, this was a case where there is no difficulty in understanding what it means, except in one respect. I have this sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I suffer from the same trouble in this case. The expression "art and part in" is entirely new to me, because of my ignorance of Scottish law, where, I am told, it is commonplace. If that is the trouble, I hope he will withdraw his objection.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(UNITED KINGDOM COURTS NOT TO TRY OFFENDERS TRIED BY SERVICE COURTS OF VISITING FORCE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget: I have one query. Can the occasion contemplated in subsection (1) ever arise?
Without prejudice to the last foregoing section, where a person has been tried by a service court of a country to which this section applies in the exercise of the powers referred to in subsection (1) of section two of this Act, he shall not be tried for the same crime by a United Kingdom court.
I suppose it could be the same crime if it was a crime specifically against the

English law which they had tried in their court as a breach of an English statute. But the expression "same crime" is a very curious one.
What does seem to me to be covered is where this same thing is contemplated in clause 7 (6). I should have thought the position always was that an offence contrary to the law of another country could never be more than analogous to an offence contrary to our own law. It could never be the same crime.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to raise this point upon the Second Reading. I think I can dispel his difficulties. If an offence against foreign law consists of the same essential ingredients as an offence against British law, the two offences are the same crime.
If I recall to the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind the Extradition Act, 1870, I think on a moment's consideration he will see that I am correct. If this were not so, this Act could not operate since the fugitive criminal can only be extradited for an offence that is the same crime in both the demanding state and the state of refuge. Subsection (1) refers to the crime as a whole and not to the act committed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised another interesting point on which I could give him some contradictory dicta, but I do not think it would be fair to the rest of the Committee who have not the same interest in these matters that he and I have.

Mr. Paget: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to extradition, that is different, and where an act is a crime under both laws, there can be extradition; surely this is not the same?

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(ARREST, CUSTODY, ETC., OF OFFENDERS AGAINST UNITED KINGDOM LAW.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the first two Amendments might be discussed together.

Mr. Paget: This is only drafting.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is arguable which is the best form of drafting. I still prefer that in the Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman and those associated with him have been very considerate on a number of other points, and rather than spend the time on discussion, perhaps I could intimate that I am prepared to accept these two Amendments, which are really drafting Amendments—the "bail bond" Amendment and——

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment has not yet been moved.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I only intended, by way of interruption, to say I am prepared to accept the next three Amendments. It might be that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take a slightly different course.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at the end, to insert "or bail bond."
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is simply a drafting Amendment, but I should have thought it was an improvement to make three words do the work of three lines. That is all it does.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 12, leave out from beginning, to end of line 14.—[Mr. Paget.]

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, leave out "four," and insert "three."
This is not a drafting point, but in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to accept it, I will say no more about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

12 midnight.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CORONERS' INQUESTS AND AS TO REMOVAL OF BODIES OF DECEASED PERSONS.)

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out from "it," to the end of line 35, and to insert:
until the proceedings in the court of that country have been concluded or discontinued.

This Amendment deals with adjourned inquests, and the object of it is to bring the law relating to a trial in foreign courts into line with what it is here, that is to say, that when an inquest is adjourned it shall be adjourned until the proceedings in the court of the visiting force have been concluded or discontinued.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. Subsection (3), which provides that when a coroner adjourns an inquest he may not resume it without the direction of the Secretary of State, serves two purposes.
In the first place it relates to subsection (1). A coroner may have begun to hold an inquest on the death of a person who had a relevant association with a visiting force before it is discovered that he is such a person. In that event he must adjourn the inquest, and the decision whether the coroner should resume the inquest amounts to the same as that whether he should hold an inquest, and it should be reserved to the Secretary of State in the same way. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved would seem to me to overlook subsection (1) altogether, and remove this protection.
In the second place, this subsection relates to adjournments under subsection (2). I do not know if the hon. and learned Gentleman has pursued this point, but if he has not I should be grateful if he would look at it. He will then see the similarity between subsection (2) and Section 20 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926. That provision contains two requirements which are essential to its proper operation. The first is that the criminal court should report the result of the proceedings to the coroner, and the second that the coroner's jury, if the inquest is resumed, should not find a verdict which is inconsistent with that of the criminal court.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, we cannot oblige foreign courts to report the results of proceedings to a coroner. That is something which cannot
be done in one of our own municipal statutes. We think that the most satisfactory way of ensuring that inquests are not needlessly resumed and inconsistent


verdicts are not given is by reserving to the Secretary of State the power to direct a resumption of the inquest if the circumstances make it necessary. If the hon. and learned Gentleman refreshes his memory on the Coroners (Amendment) Act I think that he will see that it is not an unreasonable suggestion. I would ask him to look at that Act and not press his Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful for that explanation, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(APPLICATION TO VISITING FORCES OF LAW RELATING TO HOME FORCES.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and to insert:
(1) Where under any enactment a power is exercisable by any authority or person—

(a) as respects any of the home forces or their members or service courts or other persons in any way connected therewith, or
(b) as respects any property used or to be used for the purposes of any of the home forces, or for taking possession of any property to be so used, or for acquiring (whether by agreement or compulsorily) any property so used or to be so used,

Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that subject to any conditions specified by or under the Order the power shall be exercisable by that authority or person in the case of any visiting force to which the Order applies to any extent to which it would be so exercisable if the visiting force were a part of any of the home forces.
(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council made as respects any visiting force make provision—

(a) for exempting that force or members or service courts thereof or other persons in any way connected therewith, or property used or to be used for the purposes thereof, from the operation of any enactment specified in the Order to any extent to which the force, members, courts, persons or property would be, or would be capable of being, exempted therefrom if the force were a part of any of the home forces;
(b) for conferring on that force or any such members, courts, persons or property as aforesaid any other privilege or immunity specified in the Order, being a privilege or immunity which would be enjoyed by, or would be capable of being conferred on, the force, members, courts, persons or property if the force were a part of any of the home forces,


subject however to any conditions specified by or under the Order.
(3) Where by any enactment the doing of anything is prohibited, restricted or required in relation to—

(a) any of the home forces or their members or service courts or other persons in any way connected therewith,
(b) any property used or to be used for the purposes of any of the home forces.

Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that the prohibition, restriction or requirement shall have effect in the case of any visiting force to which the Order applies to any extent to which it so would have effect if the visiting force were a part of any of the home forces.
(4) An Order in Council under this section—

(a) may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to Her Majesty in Council expedient for the purposes of the Order, including provisions for applying, modifying, adapting or suspending any enactment;
(b) may make financial provision in respect of the exercise of any power, or the discharge of any duty, conferred or imposed by the Order.

I wonder if it would be convenient for the Committee if I gave a general account of the purpose for which this Amendment is designed, although I did refer briefly to the matter on Second Reading? The Committee may remember that I gave an undertaking during the Second Reading to put down an Amendment to Clause 8 so as to provide that visiting forces should not themselves be entitled to exercise compulsory powers. I do not think that anyone differed from that.
The second point of my Amendment is to make it clear that visiting forces can be put in no better position than that which the home forces could be put, and the Amendment serves to implement that undertaking. Perhaps I might be allowed to give a short summary of the whole Clause as amended in order that the Committee can appreciate what is before them. That means going on to the further Amendments which are included in a further subsection. I hope hon. Gentlemen may find it useful to have a conspectus of the whole Clause.
Subsection (1) enables Orders in Council to be made providing that wherever a United Kingdom authority has compulsory powers in relation to home forces that authority shall be able to exercise them for the benefit of visiting forces. Under the Defence Acts the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State


for Air have power to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of the home forces. The subsection will enable them to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of visiting forces, and as I have pointed out before, the visiting forces will have no compulsory powers.
Subsection (2) enables Orders in Council to be made granting to visiting forces the exemptions from the ordinary law that could be granted if the visiting forces were part of the home forces. Again I make it clear that no higher exemption may be granted to the visiting forces than could be granted to the home forces. I did give some examples, and I do not wish to go through them again, but they include obvious things like the carrying and possession of firearms essential to every force.
Subsection (3) enables the visiting forces to be placed by Order in Council in the same position as the home forces as regards obligations and prohibitions that are imposed on persons in relation to the forces. The Committee will remember that I gave the example on Second Reading of harbouring a deserter. That offence, I might make it clear in passing, would be an offence against the United Kingdom law and not against the law of the State sending the visiting forces. Again I emphasise that the subsection does not allow persons to be placed in a less advantageous position in relation to a visiting force than they are in relation to home forces.
Subsection (4) deals with the points of enabling the Order in Council to amend Acts for the purpose of that Order—I repeat and emphasise for the purpose of that Order—and enables financial provision to be made.
Subsection (5) makes financial provision for the cost of things done for the visiting forces, for example the acquisition of land for the purposes of visiting forces which might require increased expenditure, and the expenditure involved will be an increase of expenditure already provided for rather than a new amount of expenditure.
I am sure everyone in the Committee will appreciate the importance of subsection (6), which provides for an affirmative resolution, that is, the stronger form of Parliamentary control, in respect

of all Orders in Council made under the Clause.
Subsection (7) is a definition provision. Subsection (8) is necessary because home forces are not always expressly mentioned in the enactments in question. I quote as an example the Explosive Substances Act, 1897. Other exemptions arise from the rule that an enactment does not bind the Crown.
I am sorry to have inflicted this explanation on the Committee, but I feel it ought to know the method in which I have tried to carry out my pledge, and I am sure that all hon. Members in the Committee would like these two matters, which I have stressed so often, to be ensured.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 30, at end, insert:
(5) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to the provisions of an Order under this section in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment.

In page 7, line 39, leave out subsections (5) and (6), and insert:
(7) In this section—
enactment" means an enactment (passed either before or after the passing of this Act) of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and includes any instrument having effect under an enactment;
property" includes both real and personal property, or in Scotland both heritable and moveable property.
(8) Subsections (1) and (3) of this section apply whether the power in question is exercisable, or the prohibition, restriction or requirement in question is imposed, by provision expressly relating to the home forces or by more general provision, and subsection (2) of this section applies whether the exemption, privilege or immunity in question would subsist, or be capable of being conferred, by virtue of any such provision or by reason of any enactment's not binding the Crown.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP OF CIVILIAN COMPONENT OF VISITING FORCE.)

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): Mr. Irvine.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. What is happening about Clause 9?

The Temporary Chairman: A new Clause 9 comes among the new Clauses. We are now on Clause 10.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, at the end, to insert:
accompanying a visiting force and in the employ of an armed service of the sending country and.
I have been asked to move this Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). The object is to introduce another limitation on the definition of membership of "civilian component" of a visiting force.
We are, of course, in the great difficulty that we do not quite know what persons are going to be recognised as members of a civilian component for the purposes of this Bill. It may well be that it is difficult if not impossible for the Home Secretary to introduce a more precise definition into the Bill, but I hope he will agree that it is desirable in principle that this class of persons should be restricted so far as that can possibly be done. My hon. Friend did think that by introducing these words in line 34 it would ensure that no one could have the benefit of membership of a civilian component unless he was a person "accompanying a visiting force and in the employ of an armed service of the sending company."

12.15 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I quite understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman to incorporate part of the definition of a member of a civilian component that appears in Article I of the agreement, but my advisers and the Ministers concerned have considered most carefully whether it is feasible to insert the definition of the status of members of a civilian component in the Bill. Unfortunately, we found it is not. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is surprised at the difficulty we encountered.
As I said on Second Reading, it is not satisfactory to incorporate the definition in the agreement as it lacks precision, although it is sufficient for international purposes to indicate generally what is intended. But I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of commercial cases, would appreciate the real difficulty of the phrase "in the employ of an armed service" because of its uncertainty. We found that it was too uncertain a term to use, and it was impossible to find a more

satisfactory term consistent with the agreement.
Therefore, it falls to me to say for myself that I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as the Home Office is concerned, it will not be left to mere formality or rubber stamp in the matter when it is put forward, but we shall consider it carefully. I shall have in mind the words he has just used, and try to limit it so that there can be no abuse. I ask him to appreciate when I say that there is real difficulty, that the matter has been considered, and when I say that it shall be considered so long as I have any responsibility for it.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the administrative difficulty, and appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I am sure he will, as his successors will, too, act in the spirit he has indicated and look carefully at this designation before he grants it. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 8, line 38, at the end, to insert:
other than the Government of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I indicate here the same course, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) allowed me to do earlier in our proceedings, and say that I am prepared to give an undertaking to put down a suitable Amendment on Report. I do not think the words in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment quite cover the position. If he will accept the undertaking that I will consider it and put down these words then the time he would devote to the Amendment at this stage may be shortened.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The Home Secretary has been most helpful. In view of what he has said and the knowledge that we shall have consideration of an Amendment in approved language on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF PART I.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, to leave out from "be," to the end of the line, and to insert:
sufficient evidence of the fact so stated unless the contrary is proved.
This is an Amendment designed to meet the criticism which was made during Second Reading, that it was left entirely to the authorities of visiting forces to say conclusively whether a person is a member of a visiting force. I think it is clear that this Amendment allows evidence to be heard in rebuttal of a certificate from the appropriate authority of the sending country to the effect that the person is a member of a visiting force. I think I ought to say specifically that in my view the result is that on application for habeas corpus a person could insist and call evidence that he is not a member of a visiting force and so not subject to the jurisdiction of a visiting force by virtue of his membership.
As is shown by the Order Paper, I propose to move a similar Amendment in regard to Clause 11 (4), which deals with proof of the question of whether an offence was committed in the course of duty. I should like hon. Members opposite to realise that I have paid attention to what they said on Second Reading and I hope that they will think that I have met their point reasonably and fairly.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I think that all of us on this side of the Committee will regard these concessions which the Home Secretary has announced as being most valuable. He has met most handsomely the criticisms which were made about the Clause on the Second Reading. He has put down words which are a great improvement on my own attempt at drafting, words to give effect to the substance of our criticisms.
I think the Committee may now congratulate itself that the whole position has been completely transformed. No longer is this Bill open to the criticism that any of us, for example, might find ourselves subject to a certificate of a commanding officer to the effect that we were a member of a visiting force and bound by that ipse dixit. Equally, no longer are British Forces bound absolutely and completely by a certificate of an

official of a foreign force that a particular individual is on duty at a particular time. In both cases, the individual in question now has recourse to the ancient and valuable right of habeas corpus in order to establish his liberty and claim his freedom.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, to leave out from "court," to end of line 10, and to insert:
be receivable in evidence but shall not be accepted as conclusive evidence of any fact therein stated unless the person specified in the said certificate admits the truth of the said fact.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make certain that the admission of the document in evidence shall only apply where the fact certified in the certificate is not disputed. Lawyers will appreciate that one cannot make admissions in criminal cases. It is necessary to prove every fact relevant to the charge. Therefore, it may be necessary to prove formally certain things and where the fact to be proved is not disputed it is eminently proper that there should be a certificate, that the certificate should be receivable in evidence, and the fact formally proved.
What we were all against on Second Reading, and what I hope we are all against now, is making the essential elements in the charge provable merely by a certificate incapable of challenge. One must look at the Clause to see what the position is if the Amendment is not adopted.
The Clause deals only with the question of evidence and subsection (2), to which this is an Amendment, provides that
For the purposes of this Part of this Act a certificate issued by or on behalf of the appropriate authority of a country, stating, as respects a person specified in the certificate,—

(a) that on a date so specified he was sentenced by a service court of that country to such punishment as is specified in the certificate, or
(b) that he is, or was at a time so specified, detained in custody in pursuance of a sentence passed upon him by a service court of that country or pending or during the trial by such a court of a charge brought against him, or


(c) that he has been tried, at a time and place specified in the certificate, by a service court of that country for a crime so specified,

shall in any proceedings in any United Kingdom court be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated.
It ought not to be conclusive evidence. It should be capable of challenge and rebuttal and should not be evidence at all unless the fact is, from the point of view of the defendant, an admitted fact. The same principle has been discussed in other parts of the Clause about other matters and it is not necessary to dilate on it. I am sure that the principle is accepted and whether the particular words I have chosen commend themselves to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or not I am sure he will be prepared to give effect in spirit to it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We considered very carefully whether the course I have mentioned with regard to subsection (1) was really necessary. Subsections (2) and (3) seem to us to be largely matters of history and record. There was another reason. If we allowed them to be the matter of debate and discussion in the case where the person specified does not admit the truth of the said fact, I felt it might involve the United Kingdom court in questions of foreign procedure, and that that was undesirable because the visiting forces' court given the power to exercise jurisdiction ought to be able to exercise it in these regards without interference.
I hope that the hon. Member will reconsider the matter from the points of view I have mentioned. I have met views expressed on subsections (1) and (4), and I do not think that in this matter, which is so largely a matter of history, there is anything like the urgency which there was in the subsections which I have mentioned. I therefore hope that he will not press the Amendment, or that he will have another look at the situation and consider whether it is worth while raising it at a later stage of the Bill.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I quite agree that there is a difference between this Amendment to this subsection and the corresponding Amendment in the earlier subsections. Whereas the other was a substantive point, this is not, and there is that degree of difference between them. All the same, I commend to the consideration

of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the same principle should apply. If the thing is right in itself, it does not matter that it is not quite so important in this case as in the other case, and the same safeguards might as well be introduced. I agree that the mischief aimed at is nothing like as grave as that aimed at in the corresponding part of the other subsections, but no harm would be done in making the same Amendment as that which we made before.
I do not propose to press the matter at this stage, however, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think the Home Secretary will be the first to acknowledge that we have made considerable progress with the Bill and, speaking on behalf of my hon. Friends, I would say that he has been extremely conciliatory in the sense that he has made a number of concessions to meet points which were raised during Second Reading. On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that this is a vitally important Bill and that, as he himself said during Second Reading, it is a difficult Bill which merits the closest scrutiny of the House in Committee.
We have been engaged on the Bill since about five o'clock—for about seven-and-a-half hours—and the discussion has, not unnaturally, been confined to a relatively few Members, who have taken a special interest in the matter. Apart from the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, no hon. Member has spoken from the Government benches during the Committee stage. I make no complaint about that at all, but I feel that we have now reached a point at which it would be asking too much of the Committee to continue with the remaining Clauses at this hour of the night.
We have still to consider an entirely new section of the Bill, namely, the new Clauses relating to civil liabilities. So far we have been dealing exclusively with matters of criminal jurisdiction, giving criminal jurisdiction to foreign courts, and ousting the jurisdiction of our own courts. The remaining parts of the


Bill, with which we have still to deal, are of an entirely different nature, namely, the ways in which the rights of British civilians should be protected in respect of torts which may be committed by members of foreign forces, civilian components, and dependents. I think it is obvious that any thorough and careful examination of the remaining parts of the Bill must take a great deal of time.
I am sure that it is the wish of the Home Secretary and his supporters, as it is the wish of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, that we should not scamp consideration of this Bill, but should ventilate matters which are of great public interest. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that this would be an appropriate moment to adjourn.

Question put, and negatived.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, to leave out "conclusive evidence of that fact," and to insert:
sufficient evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.
This is the other Amendment to subsection (4) which I mentioned. I did explain to the Committee that it does the same service in regard to the certificate in respect of whether an offence was committed in the course of duty. It is another concession, making that certificate only sufficient evidence of the fact, and adding the words "unless the contrary is proved." It makes another concession in this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I apologise for the rather late hour of my return. Like some of my hon. Friends, I felt that after a few hours away from the Committee for sleep I would be able to turn rather more adequately to other matters before the Committee. I do not think we ought to part with this Clause without some discussion about it.
I take the view that it is an impertinence to the Committee to ask it to continue to discuss this Bill at this late hour. Had I been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Colegate, when the question of reporting Progress was raised, I

would have been able to express the view that it is unfortunate that we should be asked to discuss this matter at this hour. But the Committee has decided otherwise. Therefore I must ask the Committee to bear with hon. Members who want to discuss the matter before us, some of them no doubt at length.
It would have been better if a measure which is taking away from British citizens a great deal of liberty could have been discussed at a time when hon. Members were fresh, and when there more present and we could have had some contribution from hon. Members opposite.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that. I was about to make the point that it seems undesirable that we should take an absolute view of certificates in this fashion. I am under the difficulty—and I apologise to the Committee—that I was not here for some of the discussion of the matter, but it should not be left without a few more words from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF PART II.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, to leave out from "be" to second "and", in line 16, and to insert:
sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved, that the request has been made and of its effect.
The Committee has accepted the Government Amendments to Clause 11, page 9, line 40, and page 10, line 26, and it would be convenient, without prejudice, to what may be the strict view of the law, for uniformity, if Clause 14 (1) made similar provision to that in Clause 11 (1) and (4). It is some concession to meet the points of view expressed, and, as a concession, I commend this Amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 13, line 17, to leave out paragraph (b).
This paragraph provides that
a document purporting to be a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding a unit or detachment of any of the forces of a country to which this section applies, stating that a person named and described therein was at the date of the certificate a deserter, or absentee without leave, from this force shall be admissible without proof as evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the facts appearing from the document to be so certified.'
There is no reason why this subsection should be in the Bill. This provides that the question whether an offence has been committed shall be settled by the certificate of the complainant without further argument or further evidence. It is inconsistent with the concessions which the Home Secretary has already made in other parts of the Bill to the objection which has been raised to this kind of certificate and its evidential effect, and the Bill would be no worse if the subsection were left out.
If the man is alleged to be a deserter or an absentee without leave there are in the Bill, without this subsection, sufficient powers to deal with him, and sufficient powers to make him subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the service. One does object to providing that the certificate shall be conclusive in any case and certainly in a case where the certificate appears in the paragraph as liable to be conclusive evidence that the complainant or prosecutor is right without trial.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose——

12.45 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) does not mind my rising at this stage, because I do not think there is so much between us as might have appeared at first. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was worried, as he said on Second Reading, by the words
evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence.
I took the view, as he will remember, that "evidence" was equivalent to admissible evidence and, with regard to Scotland, I took further advice on the law of Scotland and found that the phrase "sufficient evidence" does not mean conclusive evidence. It meets the point that

in Scotland there have to be two witnesses to any question of fact, and it is not sufficient evidence unless the number of witnesses are there.
However, I do not wish to dispute about what is the law. One is only too conscious of one's own mistakes. I intended to move an Amendment, in line 23, which introduces the words
sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to imagine the Clause with these words inserted, so that his doubt about the law is removed. Then we will come to the position that it is clearly open to the person alleged to be a deserter to deny that he is a deserter and if he does not support his denial by evidence it will be for the prosecuting authority to prove that he is a deserter. Put another way, this provision, to which the hon. Gentleman objects, will only operate in the case where it is common ground that the person is a deserter, and as was said a moment ago in our discussion, where it is common ground, there is really no harm in the certificate being used.

Mr. S. Silverman: In that case, what is the purpose of the paragraph? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to imagine it as he would later amend it. I have done so. May I, in return, ask him to imagine the Bill without the paragraph? What would be lost? The visiting forces would still be able to say that the man is subject to our jurisdiction, we are making a charge against him, and we are entitled to try him in our courts. Why should you have a certificate that he is already guilty.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The certificate would constitute evidence given by the prosecuting authority, to which there would be no dispute. That would be a convenient way of proving an undisputed fact. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out himself, you cannot make admissions in a criminal case and it is really a convenient method of providing that the objectionable teeth are withdrawn. That is how it seemed to us. It has now become a point of very small compass, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree. I will have another look at this point to see whether it is necessary. I have given


the reasons for thinking it is, but I will certainly have another look at the point and I hope that in the circumstances he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Paget: Before this question is left I should like to reinforce a little what my hon. Friend said, because there seems to be considerable substance in it. If a man is, in fact, a deserter the only certificate which I should have thought was necessary in order to detain him would be a certificate that he was a member of the forces and that it was proposed to bring a charge against him. Surely it is preferable to do it in that way than for the force that is to try him—and presumably presume him innocent until he is proved guilty—to issue a certificate that he is guilty before they put him on trial.

Mr. Bing: It seems to me that this adds further confusion and makes further difficulties. Does the certificate have to decide that the man is either a deserter or is absent without leave? Those who have had the misfortune to deal with Army law know that there does not seem to be a great difference between these two cases. Is it a defence, when a certificate is produced to say that a man is a deserter, for him to say, "I am producing evidence to show that I am absent without leave"? He may say that it was his intention to return after six months' absence to attend to private business.
It is that sort of argument which is
very familiar to anyone who has had anything to do with courts-martial. It seems to me that paragraph (a) covers everything which the Minister wants. Paragraph (a) refers back to Clause 13 and if anyone is suspected of any offence under Clause 13, which deals with absentees and deserters, he can be brought in with that certificate. Why should there have to be a separate certificate saying that a man is a deserter or an absentee? Does the certificate have to say that he is alternatively a deserter or an absentee, or may be one or both? The whole thing seems to me, on the basis on which it is drafted, to be very unclear and to lead to the sort of undesirable argument which, while good for the legal profession, is not necessarily valuable in the administration of justice.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the question again and see whether there is any force in the various points which have been put forward. I should have thought that the point was entirely covered by paragraph (a) and that paragraph (b) merely adds considerably to the confusion without making anything clearer or giving any further powers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should like to refresh the memory of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point which has relevance to the Amendment which we are discussing and the Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman directed our attention, which he will, presumably, be moving a little later. It is a point relating to political refugees. In connection with a previous Clause the Minister was good enough to say that he would consider the matter to see whether a further Amendment should be introduced on the Report stage.
I want to put this question to him in connection with the Amendment to which he has already directed our attention as affecting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The Minister is to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out from the beginning, to "of," in line 24, and to insert:
sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved.
If a deserter or absentee without leave claims to be a political refugee in what manner, or by which court, is that fact going to be established? How is the contrary to be proved by the person who is claiming to be a political refugee? Surely it will not be possible for him, and it would be highly undesirable, to attempt to argue that case before a court constituted or under the jurisdiction of the visiting force?
That would surely have to be decided in the courts of our own jurisdiction. This could not be a subject of legal argument in one or other of the extraterritorial jurisdictions that are being created by the Bill. I do not ask the Home Secretary to give a specific assurance on this point now beyond the following, that he will undertake to examine this point between now and the Report stage, subject to any further comments he may have now.
If he will undertake to consider this point it will help to remove what I imagine may be a difficulty in the kind of dispute or argument that may arise if and when the same man is described by the commanding officer of the visiting force as a deserter or absentee without leave, and at the same time making an application to the Home Secretary asking that he should be treated as a political refugee.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly consider the point which is cognate to the point I have already promised to consider. With regard to the general points which I have already promised to consider, I would ask those hon. Gentlemen interested to consider the importance of Section 154 (2) of the Army Act. I will gladly consider the matter before the Report stage.

Mr. S. Silverman: We gladly accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, in turn, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be equally prepared to consider what he has asked. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out from the beginning, to "of," in line 24, and to insert:
sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved.
If the Committee does not consider it discourteous, as I have already dealt with this point, perhaps they will allow me to move this Amendment formally. I have already asked them to consider paragraph (b) with the Amendment in.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(EXTENSION OF ACT TO COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I apologise for seeming ill-prepared to ask this question. It is in my memory that the agreement does not apply to the dependent territories, and as this Clause does provide for application to all our Colonies it is desirable that the Home Secretary should clear up

this point. I apologise to him for my discourtesy in not being able to refer him to the passage in the agreement which I seem to recollect, but cannot find at the moment—it may be in a protocol or other document attached to the agreement—which provides that when it is ratified in respect of the home country it is not automatically ratified in respect of Colonies.
If I am right in so thinking, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us which of the States which are taking part in this have ratified the matter in relation, as well as to the home country, to their colonial territories as well. I am sorry that I have failed to refer him to the exact passage in the agreement, but I am fairly sure such a passage exists.

1.0 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: There is one other item of information which, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to let the Committee have. It will be noticed that under subsection (3) of the Clause
The territories herein before referred to
are specified. It may be of interest for the Committee to know to what extent there have been any consultations with, for example, the legislative authorities in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, because it would surely, of course, be undesirable that this Committee should seek to impose additional obligations or restrictions or whatever it likes to call them upon, say, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man without some preliminary consultation with the representative bodies in those territories specified in the Clause.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have been trying to meet the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) raised. I am not sure whether he had in mind Article XX of the agreement which says:
Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, the present Agreement shall apply only to the metropolitan territory of a Contracting Party.
Then it lays down the procedure dealing with the subject matter, which is set out rather lengthily in paragraph 2 and is also dealt with in paragraph 3. The Clause which we are now discussing enables the


Bill to apply in the Channel Isles or the Isle of Man, the Colonies, Protectorates and trust territories.
With regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, the defence questions are discussed, but I do not think that really any questions under the Bill are likely to arise in that regard. The Bill is not designed to cover visiting forces from the Colonies because of the legal reason that visiting forces from the Colonies are in law regarded as on the same footing as the home forces. The effect of subsection (1) of the Clause is that the Bill can be extended so as to become the law of a territory together with any Orders in Council applying it with respect to any foreign country.
I do not think that there is any real difficulty on this matter, but, perhaps, the hon. and learned Gentleman would, as he has raised the point comparatively late, let me have a look at it again, and then I shall try, if the Report stage procedure does not enable him to raise the point, to answer it in my speech on Third Reading. I will see that it is answered.

Mr. Bing: Let me first thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courteous reply, and let me delay the Committee just for one moment to explain a little more what I meant. There are some Colonies, so-called, at the moment which are practically passing into the stage of Dominions. The Gold Coast is a good example. It already has a Prime Minister and has a practically responsible Government and it is, for many practical purposes, in the experiment which we are trying there, almost a Dominion; but it is, of course, for technical purposes, still a Colony. It is to my mind highly undesirable that we should pass here a Measure which enables us, without any consultation with a country such as that, to provide a system of extra-territorial jurisdiction for troops of some other country which may be stationed there.
Perhaps I may take an example a little nearer, and one which has aroused considerable controversy—Malta. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there have been the most bitter disputes in the Maltese Parliament about the exact rights of the American troops in Malta. I do not want to enter into, or say anything which will embitter, that

dispute, which as the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows led a section of the Maltese Parliament to send a deputation to London to interview the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the issue.
I should have thought it was most improper to have the establishment of bases in that country without any consultation, or that we should assume the right of this Parliament, in view of the intermediary position of Malta, which not a Dominion nor properly a colony, to legislate for Malta, and say that, so far as the Maltese people are concerned, whatever Acts their Parliament passes we have put a lot of people outside their laws. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees that that is an unfortunate position, and I think that this Clause might be looked at with a little more thought for the susceptibilities of the colonial peoples.
It is not only that the Home Secretary is giving extra-territorial rights, as I understand it, to United States troops, but he is also giving such rights to the troops of the Union of South Africa. Suppose that those South African troops, with the present racial laws, which are thoroughly deplored by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, are stationed in the Gold Coast and have their own courts there because this disgraceful and discriminatory legislation is written into the military as well as the civil code.
Are we really saying that, by an Act of this House we are enforcing that the Gold Coast must accept the military law of the Union of South Africa, and thus accept a series of principles of racial discrimination? In the present situation it is not a very practical idea so to do. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the matter again with little more consideration for the susceptibilities of the colonial peoples, considering whether it is necessary to legislate in this way, and see whether we should not provide that in the Colonies it will come into operation if there is a local Act saying that it shall do.
The Home Secretary is no doubt aware of the procedure in Northern Ireland by which an Act passed here could only come into force there if an Address is presented to the Crown or the Governor by the local Parliament. I would suggest that, where there is a local


Parliament, provision should be made in this Act that it shall only come into force as far as those territories are concerned if there is an Address from the local legislature to the Governor praying that it shall be applied. I do not believe that any form of co-operation will be obtained if this Parliament attempts to enforce on a Colony legislation saying who their courts can or cannot deal with, unless there is a local request for it to be done.
I see the point that what probably was in mind was places like Gibraltar, which has no local legislature, and places like Aden, which are military areas. But, as the Clause stands, it deals with all Colonies and it is a most unsatisfactory position. I hope that before we part from the Clause, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will take that sort of question into consideration and make certain that where we have set up local legislatures we do not now impose a system without their being in any way consulted.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(REPEALS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: Earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was the proposal that until reciprocal provisions were made in regard to all countries other than the United States it was not proposed to apply this Measure in relation to their visiting forces. He also said in regard to the United States that we should pass the Measure even though we have not got that assurance.
As I understand it, that means to say that as we are repealing the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act and Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Allied Forces Act, that there might possibly be some form of interval. I do not know whether there are any such forces here concerned and this may be a purely academic point. But, if in fact the reciprocal legislation is not passed and there is an interval in regard to Dominion forces it seems important if we should hold over them the reciprocal provisions,

whereas in the case of the United States the whole thing is in confusion and no one knows whether there is to be reciprocal provision at all.
So far as America is concerned, the Measure is brought into application almost immediately. I do not know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks this is likely to lead to difficulties, but I would like him to say a word on the matter.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think the hon. and learned Member need be worried. As he will see by the next Clause,
This Act shall come into operation on such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, and different dates may be appointed in relation to different provisions of this Act.
Assume that a date is appointed for Part I and Clause 1 comes into force, we have, as is seen from the drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 1:
References in this Act to a country to which a provision of this Act applies are references to—
(a) Canada, Australia, New Zealand,…" and Dominion countries.
Then there is the provision extending the Measure to the N.A.T.O. forces and the provision for applying only part of the Measure. The position in regard to the Dominion countries is, as I toll the Committee earlier, that at the time of the 1933 Act they did produce reciprocal legislation which dealt with the position of our forces in the Dominions. I also told the Committee that Canada has already passed legislation dealing with the present position.
The answer to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that as far as one can see there is not the slightest fear of the reciprocal arrangements not being forthcoming in the case of the Dominions that dealt with the 1933 position. With regard to the others, we very much hope that it will be forthcoming. And if the hon. and learned Gentleman analyses the provisions of Clause 1, the Clause we are dealing with, and Clause 19, he will find an extraordinary amount of flexibility has been kept to deal with any of the difficulties which may arise. He will perhaps share my hope that in this special matter there will not be any difficulty, for a great variety of causes.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the view that different provisions of this Act would enable him to take Clause 1 subsection (1, a) and treat Canada, Australia, and New Zealand each as being a separate provision so that the Act could be brought into operation, say, for Canada but not for Australia? I should have thought myself that if it is intended to bring it into operation separately for separate countries "provision" was rather an awkward word to use. "Provision" on ordinary construction would have meant a paragraph or a sub-paragraph.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will consider that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My hon. and learned Friend has raised a very important point. The impression I formed after listening to the Attorney-General on Clause 18 was that it will apparently be possible to get over such lacunae as may arise by Order in Council. It would have the effect of delaying the repeal, or effect of the repeal, imposed in this Clause regarding any one of the British Commonwealth forces found in this country. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, with some justice, that the intention has been to leave the position as flexible as possible to deal with such events as might occur in achieving simultaneous reciprocity and such things.
The danger here seems to be that in attempting flexibility, which is very desirable, he is also introducing a degree of complexity. It makes it difficult for people studying this Act to find out what exactly may be the position regarding any one particular Commonwealth force, and to find out whether an Order in Council has, in fact, repealed the legislation referred to here in respect of that force or whether it still applies regarding another Commonwealth force.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would consider the point, with his usual courtesy and spirit of accommodation. I am prepared, having subscribed to the view put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, to leave it at that.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, it would be as well if he gave us some explanation of his view of the interpretation of subsection (2). I understood him to say that it enables the Government at any time to bring into force any provision, not as any particular Section or subsection of the Act, but as a separate part. Thus, at any time he might decree that Section 1 of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act was repealed but that Sections 2 and 3 would continue in operation for a period; and at a subsequent date it would be possible for him to make an Order in Council declaring, for instance, that Section 2 was repealed. In that way, an Order in Council could be made for any particular provision which is dealt with in the Bill. We all regret that we have to ask it at this time of the night, but we must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us his views.
Take, for instance, Clause 15, under which an Order in Council is made in respect of territories. One suspects that the Channel Islands would be one territory, but of course they consist of a number of islands with different degrees of independence. Is it possible to make an Order in respect of Guernsey and not in respect of Jersey? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Guernsey Legislature have certain powers over the courts of Alderney, that Alderney is to some degree dependent on Guernsey, and that Sark is in some degree dependent on Alderney.
Is he saying that the Order in Council can be made for the Channel Islands to as low a sub-division as we care to make it, or is he saying that the Order must apply, for example, to the territories designated in Clause 15 (3, a)? Is he saying that any particular matter can be singled out and brought into force at any one time and that any particular exception can be made; because, if so, that is a very wide and general power and does not leave much for the house. We are asked to legislate, in that case,


while he says that he will pick out various parts of the Act and say, "We shall enforce this, but we shall leave out other parts." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to say that by an Order in Council he is entitled to leave, say 10 words out of the Act, there is little point in our moving Amendments. I think it is desirable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should clarify what he thinks is meant by this subsection.
I take the view that it means any particular Section or subsection or paragraph, but that it is not possible to split up a paragraph and to say that half of it shall apply and the other half shall not apply. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view?

Mr. E. Fletcher: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has raised an interesting point, although the Committee will forgive me if I do not pursue him into all the matters connected with it. I am not particularly interested in the dissection of the Channel Islands. There are some very good stories about the Channel Islands, but I shall not inflict them on hon. Members at this hour of the morning.
The Home Secretary has invited the Committee to give him valuable time by the way he has drafted this Clause, enabling him to introduce a degree of flexibility in the manner in which the Bill is to be brought into operation. It may be asking too much, but I hope that we can at least have from the Home Secretary an assurance that one of the first Clauses which will be brought into operation is Clause 18. I regard that as the most valuable Clause of the Bill, because it repeals the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, which, as a number of hon. Members agreed earlier, ought not to be on the Statute Book any longer.

The Chairman: We have passed Clause 18.

Mr. Fletcher: We have passed Clause 18, but I am anxious to have an undertaking that it will be brought into operation at an early date pursuant to the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 19, which we are discussing. It is important, as I am sure the Home Secretary will agree, because we cannot have in existence at the same time, for example, the United States of America (Visiting

Forces) Act, 1942, and this Bill in relation to the United States. That would produce an absurd situation.
I am hoping that one of the first things that will happen will be that Clause 18 will come into operation by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 19. Is it intended that in relation to the United States, an Order in Council shall be made applying the Bill to the United States, soon after Clause 18 is brought into operation? I do not mind if there is some delay on that. I do not think other hon. Members would mind, because I still hope that, in view of what has been said in this debate the Home Secretary will see that no Order in Council is made under Clause 19 applying this Bill to the United States until we have reciprocal arrangements with the United States, which the Home Secretary is hoping to get, but about which so many hon. Members are doubtful. I hope that the fact that we may not get these arrangements with the United States will not be made an excuse for any delay in bringing into operation Clause 18.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It will certainly not be used as an excuse for not bringing about repeal of the Act. I think the hon. Member will remember, if he turns back his mind to the less harmonious part of our discussions, that that was one of the reasons I gave for the course we discussed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has raised a fascinating point. I had to argue the subject of the provisions of that Act in the House of Lords; and, speaking from memory, I would have said that if one has an enacted statement which is divisible and can stand independently, that would be a provision of the Act. I think that is the best definition I can give. Then, of course, each collection of words would have to be considered according to that test.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Bing: As it is so late, I am quite satisfied with what the whole Committee will consider a somewhat inadequate explanation. When dealing with future legislation, it is possibly rather desirable to be a little more precise and decide exactly which department can be dealt with at one time. I shall not pursue the


matter. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his short explanation.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST VISITING FORCES.)

The Minister of Defence may make arrangements whereby claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of visiting forces, or of other persons connected therewith to whom the arrangements relate, being acts or omissions of any description to which the arrangements relate, will be satisfied by payments made by the said Minister of such amounts as may be adjudged by any United Kingdom court or as may be agreed between the claimant and the said Minister or such other authority as may be provided by the arrangements; and any expenses of the Minister of Defence incurred in satisfying claims in pursuance of any such arrangements or otherwise in connection with the arrangements shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. E. Fletcher: As this is in many ways a most important Clause, I hoped we should have an adequate discussion of it on Second Reading, because we have now passed to an entirely new phase of the Bill. It is regrettable that we should have to embark on this subject at this hour. Anyhow, it is our duty to investigate the matter with the care it requires before we accept it, because, although hon. Members opposite may not realise it, this new Clause affects very closely the rights of every British subject in this country.
There was a certain amount of discussion about it on the Second Reading of the Bill, but it left the whole subject in an unsatisfactory state. The Home Secretary will remember I then asked for an assurance that, when the Bill is passed, the result will be that if any British subject suffers any tort—for example, if he is injured in any accident on the roads as the result of some negligence caused either by a member of a foreign force, or by a civilian component of that force, or by a dependant of either—he shall find himself in no worse position than he would be if injured by any other British civilian. That is the principle that should be established.
This new Clause is the only opportunity we shall have to ensure that that principle is established. In looking at the Clause, it might be wondered what there is to deal with the matter. It was explained by the Home Secretary that this was the way in which the Government intend to carry into operation that part of the treaty which deals with liability to torts of service personnel serving in a foreign country. What did the Home Secretary say in introducing it? He said:
The necessity for the Clause and for the arrangements referred to in it arises from the fact that a foreign State is, by the law of nations, immune from proceedings in the courts of another State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 573.]
We all agree with that, but we are not dealing with the immunity of a foreign State. We are dealing here with the liability of the nationals of a foreign State. We are dealing not only with the liability of the nationals of a foreign State, but with their dependants, and no question of immunity can arise in any of these cases. The instance I took in the Second Reading debate was the case of the wife of an American soldier who is driving a motor car and unfortunately has an accident in which a British civilian is involved. What is the position of the British people thereby injured? I was given an assurance by the Attorney-General that it was not intended in that case that any immunity should arise.

The Attorney-General: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: I understood I was given that assurance, and it was because of that assurance that I put down one of the Amendments on the Order Paper designed to make that clearer.
I quite agree there is nothing in the terms of the Clause which takes away any of the existing liabilities. On the other hand, we are now coming to a part of the Bill where the Government have an opportunity of giving effect to the part of the agreement which is designed to protect British citizens. Hitherto my criticism has been that the Government seem to have gone out of their way to construe the agreement adversely to the interests of British courts and individuals. Here is an opportunity to implement by Statute the intention of the agreement that British civilians should


have full redress and full opportunities of obtaining compensation if they suffer injury from foreign military personnel. That is the object of the agreement.
What is there in this Clause to carry out that intention of the agreement? There is nothing. All this Clause says is that the Minister of Defence may make some arrangements. He may, or he may not. There is nothing in this Clause to ensure that when arrangements are made the House will have an opportunity of considering them and amending them. The Home Secretary was good enough in the course of his speech—as indeed the Lord Chancellor was in another place—to give some idea of the arrangements they contemplated. Roughly they were going to give a civilian who was injured the right to stake his claim to the British claims tribunal. That may be a very good way of doing it, but any person who finds himself in that position will wish to know exactly what his rights are. We are entitled to satisfy ourselves that the machinery is adequate.
I do not want to anticipate the arguments which I shall have to advance when I move my Amendment, but it will illustrate my point if I say that the Clause would be considerably improved if, instead of taking this form—that the Minister of Defence may make arrangements—it took the form that Her Majesty the Queen might by Order in Council make some arrangements which would be subject to the usual form of consideration by the House, either by affirmative or negative Resolution. Although we should not then have the opportunity of revising the arrangements in form, we should at any rate have the opportunity of examining them in detail. Under this provision the whole matter is entirely removed from the purview of Parliament.
There are two reasons why that cannot be right. First, it does not enable us to do our duty to see that the rights of the British citizen are adequately protected, and secondly, it does not enable us to do our duty to see that the rights of the Revenue are properly protected. It may be that under the machinery devised the claimants will have a claim against the fund in excess of the amount which they would have got if they had successfully claimed damages in a court of common law against any other tortfeasor.
I regard this Clause as thoroughly unsatisfactory and I seriously suggest to the Home Secretary that there is no need to have a Clause of this kind at this stage to enable the Government to ratify this agreement. It would be much better if, having got the rest of the Bill through the Committee stage relatively happily, they left this Clause out of the Bill and waited until the Minister had been able to work out, in conjunction with the Minister of Defence, precisely what are the mechanics whereby British civilians will have the protection he wants to give them, and then introduce a new Bill setting out the matter.
I ask myself and the Home Secretary whether that would not be a far more satisfactory way to do it, and a way which would be much more fair to Parliament, than by including in this Bill this very obscure Clause which says nothing and does nothing but give the Minister of Defence power to make arrangements and removes the whole thing from the purview of Parliament? I protest against the way in which this part of the agreement has been drawn up, and I suggest that it is unnecessary to do it in this form. It complicates the task of the Committee when they are debating it in this form at this hour of night. The right thing for the Government to do would be to remove this Clause from the Bill and bring in a new Bill to deal with this totally different aspect of the question.

Mr. Paget: As I understand this Clause, it does not and cannot in any way limit the individual's civil rights. Anybody who suffers by reason of the negligence or other tort of any member of any visiting force can sue him in exactly the same way as he can sue any other individual.
The only additional thing which I wish to say with regard to that aspect of the matter—and the one which obviously will be important to the individual in the cases which arise—is that there should be some assurance that when an individual is knocked down by a car he will be suing a motorist who is insured. Negotiations are contemplated by the agreement. I feel that provisions with regard to the use of the courts here should cover the fact either that their own Government insures them, or they carry insurance from someone.
1.45 a.m.
What this Clause does is to provide an additional safeguard in that a claim is
paid in some circumstances by the Minister of Defence. With regard to that I feel that this Clause would be greatly improved by an Amendment which I understand will be called. If we are going to have a scheme of this sort, it ought to be introduced by Order in Council so that the House will be in a position to consider it, and if it so desires debate it. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us whether there is any particular objection to that procedure.
I do not think the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General can complain in any way of the progress with this Bill. I think they are getting towards the end of the Bill a lot earlier than expected, and I would suggest no harm would be done to anyone if the Home Secretary were to say that he would withdraw this Clause—which I do not think he can feel is quite as perfect as it might be—and introduce a new Clause on Report stage. That would cost him nothing, and it would be a convenient thing to do in the light of the comments made.

Mr. Bing: I, too, think that possibly one of the disadvantages of introducing a Bill in another place is that occasionally Clauses get displaced from their proper position and then appear as new Clauses. This is not a new Clause but one put in the Bill originally, taken out in another place, and now put back. It is unfortunate we could not discuss it in its proper position in the Bill. As I understand it—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—this Clause aims at implementing article 8 of the agreement, and particularly paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of it.
In the first place, I think it is unfortunate that we do not seem to have any representative here of the War Office, which is in a sense the principal Ministry concerned. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at subparagraph (5, a) of article 8 of the treaty, he will see that the provision there is that claims shall be filed, considered, settled or adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving

State with respect to claims arising from the activities of its own armed forces.
Many hon. Gentlemen feel that the whole arrangement by which the War Office has dealt with claims has been dilatory and undesirable in many ways. I see the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) on the Front Opposition Bench. I am sure he will permit me to say that this is one branch of the War Office which rather feels it has too much strain on its resources. It always has great difficulty in dealing with claims for damage and things of that sort which arise out of the occupation of property by troops. When one looks at that provision, one sees nothing for dealing with it in this way.
This is a Clause produced in an extremely general way. I think we ought to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little bit more about how he imagines this particular Clause is to work, because there are a number of matters concerned. There is, first of all, the case where the acts are concerned, that where the visiting force takes over, perfectly properly and rightly a building and, in the course of occupation of it, damages it in some way or another, it is required to pay some form of compensation. The principles upon which that is settled are entirely different from and have no relation at all to the principles upon which compensation is settled in the event of a soldier when on leave running down somebody when out in his motor car. To confuse and draw all these things into one does not seem to me a helpful way of approaching this problem.
There are, to my mind, two entirely distinct problems. The first is, what is the right and proper compensation to be paid in cases where property is taken over by the visiting force? What are we going to do in this particular case? That is one quite different aspect of the matter. In spite of what I have said about the War Office claims department, it may be an effective and easy method of dealing with it.
But then we come to the other question, which is liable to lead to much more trouble. I had in my own constituency the case of a disabled man who had saved up a long time to purchase a motor car to do his work. He was a schoolmaster. He was not able to work unless he


possessed a motor car to carry him to and from his job.
He happened to be driving this motor car one day and going over a crossing with lights and was in collision with a vehicle proceeding against the lights, driven by a sergeant of the military police, who, it turned out, had taken that vehicle in an unauthorised way, as a result of which the disabled man was not able to collect any compensation at all, because the other man himself had no money, he was not insured, and the Army said, "We are not responsible. This man took the vehicle off without asking us. We are not proposing to give any payment at all."
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, where tortious acts of this sort are envisaged there is apparently a provision for providing some form of damages, some form of liability towards the person who is injured. That is a very valuable and very desirable provision because nothing creates—I am sure I have the whole Committee with me in saying this—more ill feeling and ill will than the knocking down of somebody, well known in a neighbourhood, by a member of visiting forces, in circumstances in which he can obtain no compensation whatever. Therefore, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make his Bill popular, I would suggest to him that the best course to follow would be to make it absolutely clear to people that they are in fact protected, whether or not the member of the visiting force is on duty——

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I intervene here? Would it not help the object my hon. and learned Friend has in mind if the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced a Clause which was more closely related to the particular section of the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement to which my hon. and learned Friend makes reference, namely, paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of article VIII? The new Clause we are now discussing seems to be far less precise than the article to which I have referred.

Mr. Bing: I was going to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly how he proposes to apply the treaty. We have ratified the treaty, and it is our duty to put into our legislation what we have said we shall do. We, as the authorities of the receiving State, have to make provision

when someone is run down by a motor car by someone who has taken or used it in an unauthorised way, or has been driving when drunk—because all these things could happen to anyone in any forces whether visiting or not. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers the phrase "including the conduct of the injured person" to be in accordance with the English legal system or the method by which we assess damages in courts of law here. Does he think, so far as persons of another visiting state are concerned, that we are going to apply a different method of assessing damages?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bing: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did say that I took it in this context as dealing with contributory negligence.

Mr. Bing: Exactly. So it enforces the law as it now stands in this country. What is it that happens in this instance? Is it that a case is started in the courts, and when damages are
awarded they are paid by the Minister of
Defence? Is that the position, or how is the matter to be worked out? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that there is a provision for an ex gratia payment to be made. How does all this machinery work in with the Clause? I hope he will take an opportunity of saying a word to the Committee about how this Clause in fact implements the three paragraphs of article VIII to which I have alluded. I hope that before we come to the Amendment he will deal with the matter generally.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The reason I intervened in the middle of my hon. and learned Friend's remarks was that my first impression on seeing this new Clause was to feel, when it was proposed, that it was buoyant with uncertainty. It is so vaguely expressed that by itself it does not seem to carry us very much further or do very much more than propose a rather vague form of permissive procedure which the Minister of Defence may, or may not, follow if and when he thinks fit. I was the more surprised when I saw the Clause in the light of such studies as I have made of the agreement about the status of the forces of the parties to


the North Atlantic Treaty. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has pointed out, there are numerous matters in paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of the agreement to which there is no reference whatever in the new Clause that we are asked to approve. In particular, I would draw the attention of the Home Secretary to sub-paragraph (6, d) of article VIII which states:
Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State to entertain an action against a member of a force or a civilian component unless and until there has been payment in full satisfaction of the claim.
2.0 a.m.
It seems that if the Government really intended that the various provisions as set out in the Agreement were to be incorporated in the Bill, this new Clause relating to the settlement of claims against visiting forces could have been drafted in much more specific terms. For that reason, I hope that the Home Secretary will find it possible to accede to what in my view is a very reasonable suggestion which has been put forward, namely, to withdraw the Clause for the time being and see what can be done to ensure that it is redrafted in the much more specific terms provided for in the agreement itself.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to delay the Committee any more than I can help at this time of the morning, but I should like to say that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has been extremely helpful in this matter by putting it in very much better perspective. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), with great respect, appeared not to be really tackling the point at all.
As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton pointed out, the position in law is that if there is some tortious act by one of these people, there is a legal right to sue him, but, as has been pointed out, it may very well be that that is quite nugatory and useless and one gets nothing out of it. As regards the agreement, the United States Government has agreed to do something which no one could compel it to do. That is why reference is made to the immunity of a foreign State. The hon. Member for Islington, East seemed to think it quite irrelevant, whereas it is the foundation of the agreement that in

certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions as to which it has complete discretion it will assume responsibility.
As explained by the Home Secretary on Second Reading, certain provisional arrangements have been made—they have not yet been completed—for example with the United States, as to how this is to be done. I do not think it would be right for me to explain them in detail, but I would remind the Committee, first, that there is no reference to contractual claims at all. One is only dealing with torts, and different considerations must, of course, apply according to whether the acts occurred during the course of duty or not.
On the question of whether they occurred on or off duty in all cases it has been agreed, and the United States Government has made the concession—which is a very substantial concession—that the matter shall be dealt with by the British War Office Claims Commission. They are experienced people who have dealt with this matter for a considerable time. The result would be that if the Bill were passed anyone who had a claim against a member of a visiting force would be able to make his claim to the War Office Claims Commission in the same way as claims against British Government Departments have been made up to now. One would hope that in many cases the claim would be admitted and damages agreed and paid by the Minister of Defence by arrangement with the United States Government.
If the claim is not admitted the claimant has the right to bring proceedings in the courts against the member of the force and the Treasury Solicitor will appear for him. That applies to any case which occurs in the performance of duty. Where it does not occur in the performance of official duty, the claim may still be made in the same way, but the agreement provides that where no legal liability can be accepted the visiting force is prepared to make an ex gratia payment. Here again, the Claims Commission will examine the case and make a decision as to whether it should or should not make an ex gratia payment. If it decides not, or if it makes an offer which is not accepted, the claimant has the right to claim against the visiting force concerned. He is then back again in the


original position anyone would be but for the agreement.
The result is really that, with regard to those who have put forward arguments to the contrary, one cannot make any more provision in the way of a Clause in a Bill. We are in the position of having to accept the best terms we can get and those which have been negotiated. Although nothing is perfect in the world, I think very substantial concessions have been made. People will be in a very different position, assuming the machinery operates properly, as we are entitled to think it will, by mutual agreement and co-operation, from that in which they would be under ordinary law. People who are here legally will be defendants in actions. This is an arrangement whereby one may get a substantial measure of protection.
It is said that it would be a good thing if they were all insured. It would be a good thing, but that is not possible to get. Her Majesty's Government, like previous Governments, have made the best bargain they could. I do suggest, with respect, that if hon. Members will appreciate that that is the position they will see it is not really a question of setting out a code in the Bill.
What we have provided for is that there is power to enter into an arrangement of this kind. The House has been informed that provisional arrangements have been made by which an agreement of that kind can be secured. We say that this is at any rate a very substantial concession on the part of foreign Governments which would otherwise normally be able to claim complete immunity, and we recommend the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us of some very valuable rights which have been negotiated for individuals, but how does an individual find out about them? The normal place in which one finds one's legal rights is in the Statute that confers them. Why not put into the Statute something which will enable the citizen who is knocked down by a national of a foreign Power to find out what his rights are and act pursuant to them?
Surely it would be advisable to put the salient rights negotiated into the Statute? I cannot see what is the difficulty. It is now getting very late. A new Clause

can be introduced on the Report stage as well as in Committee. Why not have a look at it and see whether one could not put in a Clause telling the ordinary individual who looks at the Act what his rights are?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but so far as I can see it is quite impossible to put into a Clause a statement of rights when what one is dependent on is an arrangement which has to be negotiated with a foreign Government which one cannot compel to carry it out.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from the beginning, to "whereby," and to insert:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such arrangements as appear to Her to be expedient.
May I deal, first, with the concluding remarks of the Attorney-General? What do they mean? He suggested that if we had negotiated with a foreign Government, we could not put it into the Bill. But this is a domestic matter between our own citizens and our own Government, for the whole conception of the agreement on civil claims is that the British Government assume responsibility. We are concerned with the machinery by which our own people can establish their rights.
I had hoped that the Home Secretary would have risen to ask me not to elaborate the Amendment because he intended to accept it, and I still hope that he may do so. One of the first things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when he became Home Secretary—in dealing with a proposition to extend the Supplies and Services Act for a year—was that he was very anxious to help the House to devise methods by which there could be greater Parliamentary control over delegated legislation. He invited hon. Members to make suggestions as to how the House of Commons could exercise greater control over these legislative and semi-legislative matters.
I am responding to his invitation, because the whole purpose of the Amendment is to bring something within the purview and cognisance of Parliament which


ought to be within its purview and cognisance. I am concerned to see that these arrangements, when made, should be put in a form in which they will come under the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Is there anything wrong in that? Is it not a reasonable request for a Member of Parliament to make? Why do we have this unusual method of making administrative arrangements? Nobody knows what effect they will have, what they will cost or where the public can get access to them. It is a most unusual method of dealing with a subject which could easily be dealt with by one of the recognised constitutional methods.
We do not know the cost. The Financial Resolution, which enables the Committee to discuss these things in such time as the Patronage Secretary allows, was drawn in very vague terms. This is one of the Clauses which will attract a claim on the British Government which will have to be borne by the British taxpayer. I do not complain about that, but it is an additional reason why we should consider——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the Clause and not his Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: It was a little difficult to separate the two. I was trying to show that we shall be doing our duty very much better as a House of Commons if we take control of this matter by having these arrangements set out in an Order in Council which will come before us in the ordinary way rather than having them set out in arrangements which, it is said, might be made and which, presumably, will not come before us. If I am not right in the assumption that they will not come before us the Home Secretary would have corrected me. As he has not corrected or interrupted me, I think it must be obvious that under the Clause as it stands the Minister of Defence will be a free, uncontrolled agent, able to promulgate these arrangements in his own way.
I cannot understand why it should be done in this way. We are committed to expenditure without knowing anything of the procedure. The citizens of the country will not have the satisfaction of knowing that the methods of obtaining redress for injury suffered have had Parliamentary sanction. It offends my

elementary sense of the constitutional proprieties in the same way as, if I may say so, it must offend yours, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and as it would offend that of the Home Secretary were he sitting on these benches. I have not heard, in the Second Reading debate on Friday or in the Second Reading debate on this Clause this morning—which admittedly was a little attenuated owing to the circumstances in which it had to be taken—any explanation of why it must be done in this slipshod, backstairs, underhand manner.
2.15 a.m.
Why cannot the Government come into the open? Why cannot this be published in the normal, straightforward way? This is a monstrous way to deal with the subject, and I am disappointed that the Home Secretary, who on so many other occasions has shown his willingness to be reasonable and conciliatory, and understanding on points which are loaded with constitutional importance, has not shown a glimmering of sense of the force of the arguments which we were trying to put to him. Maybe it is because he is tired.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that I cannot meet the constitutional propriety of the hon. Gentleman, which he has urged so eloquently. It is constitutional propriety which prevents my considering adoption of his Amendment. In that Amendment he asks for an Order in Council. That is a legislative instrument, and it is not an appropriate instrument for making arrangements either with foreign Governments or with anyone else. One does not make arrangements by Order in Council. One legislates by Order in Council, giving oneself power, or whatever else one may require. We have considered this Amendment very carefully, but it is an entirely wrong use of the procedure and one which could not be adopted. I must advise the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Paget: I am puzzled by the arguments from the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. In substance, they have said the basis of this is an agreement come to with a foreign country. Therefore, we cannot put it into the Bill or a statutory Order. What is this Bill about? We have come to an agreement with N.A.T.O. countries, and this Bill is precisely to give legislative force to the


agreement. Now we have come to an agreement with America and the N.A.T.O. countries, as set out in this agreement, on how civilian claims and rights are to be dealt with.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Amendment reads:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such arrangements as appear to her …
My point was not that an agreement could not be recorded in a legislative instrument, in such form as this House may like, but that it is not possible to make an arrangement by an Order in Council.

Mr. E. Fletcher: There is real misunderstanding here. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Order in Council, not to make any arrangement with any foreign Power, but to set out the machinery whereby British citizens who are injured by a foreign force, or their civilian components, or dependants may recover the money which, according to the Home Secretary, it is the Government's intention to give them through the machinery of the British claims tribunal. The amendment asks that that machinery, a purely domestic matter, should be set up in an Order in Council.

Mr. Paget: The agreement how these civil rights are to be dealt with is an agreement between Governments. We ask for the legislative act which will bring the citizen into that agreement. It is precisely what the Bill does. Here, we understand an agreement has been made or is being negotiated with the American Government, and the Ministry of Defence is to make what is vaguely termed an arrangement that the Minister shall accept liability as a defendant and pay damages in respect of claims brought against American soldiers for injuries done to citizens in the course of duty.
Why cannot a legislative act—I would like a statute—give the citizen a right to sue the Minister, which is a matter between the citizen and the Minister, and set out what is necessary to recover the damages from the Minister of Defence? That, as I understand it, is the arrangement intended. I cannot see what legislative or constitutional impropriety there is in this, because it is only if it is firmly set out in some legislative act that the unfortunate citizen can discover what his rights are, and it is very important he should do so.
This is really a practical thing. You need it somewhere where he can look it up and see what his rights are, be advised what his rights are and be advised what procedure to take. There is a Clause—I cannot refer to it just at the moment—which debars the claim if he does not go through the right procedure. Where does he find out what the right procedure is if it is not in the Act or in the Statutory Instrument or somewhere else where he can find it?
We are not wasting any time here. I feel there has been a misunderstanding with regard to this and when, at a more reasonable hour, the Minister and the Attorney-General apply their minds to it, they will feel there is some force in what we are asking. Why not simply leave this to the Report stage? A new Clause can be introduced then just as well as in the Committee stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel there is some more suitable way to do it. I feel we have been very co-operative on this Bill in assisting by withdrawing Amendment after Amendment at his request. Right at the end of the proceedings can he not say he will look at this again. It will cost him no time at all.

Mr. Bing: I hope the Home Secretary will look at this again. If he looks first at the words this Amendment proposes to leave out, he will see how very unsatisfactory they are. The Minister of Defence may make arrangements. He may, or he may not. It is true it is provided that "Her Majesty may, by Order in Council"—but making arrangements may well apply to individual arrangements in relation to each particular case. This, for legislation, is an extremely vague phrase. This means that the Minister of Defence may make a series of expenditures which are not covered by any fixed system at all. We had no opportunity of reviewing or examining the matter on the Financial Resolution to see exactly what the costs are. It is a highly undesirable principle for a Minister to be able to make arrangements quite irrespective of any Parliamentary control other than having to come forward afterwards with—presumably—a Supplementary Estimate to justify what he has done. From what we have been told it is quite impossible to calculate what will be the exact sum required.
2.30 a.m.
So it will be impossible even to include in the Estimates what it is hoped to spend or what it is thought might be spent on this matter. I should have thought that under that heading it would be highly undesirable that we should thrust on any one Minister the responsibility of making arrangements. Nobody knows where the arrangements are to be recorded. If we have an Order in Council there is the great advantage that there is a document actually printed and available at which one can look, but here we are presented with a situation in which we are told when we make our claim, "I am very sorry, but that is not one of the arrangements which was made by the Minister of Defence," or "It is a case which the Minister of Defence arranged should not be settled," or "It is a case about which no arrangement has been made."
That is a very highly unsatisfactory situation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is some difficulty about the words which my hon. Friend suggests substituting, as they are drafted, very well—if there are those difficulties and if the only question is that it is not suitable to make arrangements by Order in Council—let us postpone the discussion of this matter and look at it again on the Report stage to find a form of words more appropriate to an Order in Council.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Amendment should read, "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provisions as appear to her expedient" I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment, or at any rate to consider doing so, so that such an Amendment could be made on the Report stage.
As I understand it there is no form of words which would satisfy the Attorney-General, however well they were drawn. What he insists on is that for some reasons which are not at all clear—at any rate to those hon. Members on this side of the Committee—we should at all costs leave this matter entirely in the form of a series of arrangements which are to be made by the Minister of Defence and which are not defined, set out or disclosed in any way.

The Attorney-General: They will be published.

Mr. Bing: I am grateful for the intervention of the Attorney-General. What I have said is quite wrong. These arrangements are to be published in some form. In what form does the Minister of Defence publish an arrangement? We have elaborate provisions for publishing Statutory Instruments and for making them known; but how does the Minister of Defence make known his arrangements?
Does he publish them on little notices? Are they sent out to the Press? Are they available in a duplicated form if one writes to the Ministry for them? How do they come forward?—as a Parliamentary Question inspired by the Minister, in answer to which he circulates in the OFFICIAL REPORT the arrangements which he has made? How are the public to know what are the arrangements made by the Minister of Defence—a Minister who, incidentally, is not even a Member of the House?
This is a matter which I am sure the Attorney-General would like to look at again. It would be far more convenient from everybody's point of view if we used the established procedure for setting out these things. There are a great number of Orders made by Ministers. If this form of words does not suit the hon. and learned Attorney-General let us make some provision for the Minister of Defence making an Order. Let us have an Order which appears and which is in a form which is at least accessible to people, which goes forward in the normal publications and goes into the hands of those people who are used to dealing with these matters and advising on them.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this matter again. I know that it is late at night and difficult to hold his attention, particularly when he is being approached by the Patronage Secretary—a counter-attraction which I have noticed from long experience never fails to distract the Minister. But I hope, nevertheless, that he will give some attention to this matter and will suggest an alternative method—or at any rate will satisfy the Committee by explaining how these arrangements will be made public, how one will find them, what authority they will have and what


authority they will give to anyone to demand a sum of money from the Ministry.
Suppose that a claim is satisfied—how does one establish one's claim against the Ministry? Does one have any legal claim or does one just trust to the good will of the Ministry that they will, in fact, pay the money over—because one knows the views taken by Ministries, that if one has no legal claim for something one should not have it, or should have it only after a long time? Under those circumstances, I hope that the Attorney-General will think that it is better to deal with the matter by some such course as is suggested by my hon. Friend, rather than have these very vague arrangements as set out in the Clause.

Amendment to the proposed Clause negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded to collect the voices.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. I was on my feet before the Question was put, Mr. Hopkin Morris.

The Deputy-Chairman: I had not finished collecting the voices.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order——

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no point of order. I had not finished collecting the voices. Colonel Lipton.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was awaiting with interest such answers as would be forthcoming from the Attorney-General. I am inclined to think that in respect of this particular Clause both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have rather fallen below the usual standard of fairness and reasonableness that we expect from them.
Their attitude as far as I can gather is this. An agreement, or some agreement, or a series of agreements, may be made between H.M. Government and the United States Government on the subject of claims. The Clause which we are seeking to amend is to be a Clause which, when this Bill becomes a statute, will be referred to more often by lawyers and claimants than any other part of the Bill.
It is, therefore, of particular importance that this Clause at least should be as

clear and comprehensible as possible for all those people who may have occasion to refer to it in pursuance of such claims as they may be justified in making. It may well be, as has been pointed out, that it is not possible for a variety of reasons, which have not yet been fully explained, to incorporate the agreement in the actual statute. It may well be that there is some technical difficulty in including the arrangement in an Order in Council.
We know from a very brief interjection by the Attorney-General that at least this agreement is going to be published. That is, so far, the only minute crumb of consolation we have been able to extract from the Government after some considerable argument. At least we know now that it is not to be incorporated in a statute, that it cannot be included in an Order in Council, and that it is to be published. Before we can decide whether the Committee should divide or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I was saying that, before I should feel justified in coming to a decision on whether I should ask the Committee to divide or not, I should like to know what the Attorney-General means by this brief intervention, when he said the agreement is to be published in some form. By some misunderstanding—I hope it is not more than that—he has so far been prevented from amplifying it to the Committee.
I appeal to the Attorney-General. I ask him to give just a little further information to the Committee on the manner in which this agreement is going to be published, so that claimants may know, without having to write to their Members of Parliament, and by reference to some easily accessible publication of some kind, what procedure to follow in order to establish their claims. I hope that before we leave this particular matter the Committee will have some information as to the form in which this agreement or knowledge of this agreement is available to the general public.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not want to intervene at any length at this stage of the discussion, but may I make this suggestion to the Attorney-General? What my hon. Friends want is simply to be able to see in the terms of some statutory enactment, that is to say, a Clause of this Bill or an


Order in Council, the domestic arrangements, that is to say, not a foreign arrangement, but the domestic arrangement which the Minister is to make under the terms of which he will see the claims are satisfied.
I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's part. The Attorney-General, in reply to my hon. Friends, said we cannot make an arrangement with a foreign country by Order in Council. Nobody on this side of the Committee has suggested we can. It is quite obviously the case that arrangements made with a foreign country cannot be made by an Order in Council, but that they must be the result of negotiation. Presumably, in due course the arrangement will be put down on a document or other form of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the foreign Government in question.
All my hon. Friends want is something quite different from that. They do not want that to be made by Order in Council. They have not asked for that. What they are saying is that, no doubt, the Minister of Defence, in due course, must make certain arrangements, draw up some form of scheme, and that scheme will follow closely the agreement he has negotiated with the foreign Power concerned. What my hon. Friends want is that the citizen of this country shall know what his rights are in the scheme the Minister makes in respect of claims he has, and that they should be set out in the Order in Council.
The Attorney-General has steadily refused to make any concession. He has, as I understand him, refused to give even consideration to the arguments that have been advanced. I hope he will think over that again. I think he has been unreasonable about this. He has misunderstood the case put to him. If I may put it to him again, so that he can understand it, the case of my hon. Friends is that the scheme is set down on some piece of paper with the terms of the arrangements by which the citizens of this country are entitled to recover. It can be set out in a document. If that is set down the citizens of this country will know what their rights are and know where to look to find their rights.
2.45 a.m.
My hon. Friends naturally will press this, because as the Clause reads at present it does not provide for the domestic arrangement—I repeat, the domestic arrangement—to be set out in any way in which it will be available to the ordinary citizens. That is what my hon. Friends want. I hope that the Attorney-General will give further thought to it. He will have to consider the actual scheme. Surely it can be done. I put it to him that he is being obdurate and unreasonable in closing his ears to what is a perfectly sensible suggestion from this side of the Committee.

The Attorney-General: I should like to read what my right hon. and learned Friend said when he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill and which appears to have been overlooked. It is wrong to say it has not been dealt with. He said:
When the Bill is passed and the agreement is ratified, and when these necessary supplementary arrangements are made, appropriate steps will be taken to give public notice of the procedure to be followed by persons who have claims against a member of a visiting force. In the meantime, however, I will explain to the House in general terms what arrangements are contemplated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 573]
The view taken is that it is not appropriate to put that in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Complaints have been made, and I hope I shall be allowed to answer them. In 1942, I understand, a public notice was issued, and we are perfectly prepared to see what is the most appropriate form. We do not consider the appropriate form is in to put it in the Bill.

Mr. Bing: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is misunderstanding what the Home Secretary said. The Home Secretary said, "We do not want to put it in the Bill," but the Amendment does not propose it should be put in the Bill, but that it should be stated in Order in Council which will be the appropriate paper and available to Parliament. The Home Secretary was objecting to writing details of the scheme in the Bill, and that is not what the Amendment proposed to do. It is suggested it should be done by Order in Council, and in those circumstances the whole procedure of Statutory Instruments would secure adequate publication of the details of how a claim came


to be made. I hope the Attorney-General will look into it again. It seems a reasonable proposition. It is a poor service to the Home Secretary in his absence not to include in the Bill what he had thought of and hinted at doing himself.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause be added to the Bill' be now put."

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed, to.

New Clause.—(LIABILITY OF MINISTER OF DEFENCE IN RESPECT OF ACTS AND OMISSIONS.)

The Minister of Defence shall assume in respect of acts or omissions of members of visiting forces or of other persons to whom this Act relates all such obligations as would attach to him if the said acts or omissions were the acts or omissions of a member of the United Kingdom forces.—[Mr. Bing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bing: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is, I am sure, apparent to all hon. Gentlemen who have sat in silence on the benches opposite, and the fact that they have taken so little part in our deliberations, except from the Front Bench, shows the universal support we have had for our arguments. This Clause makes certain that there is some legal obligation against the Minister of Defence for all visiting forces as there would be against an appropriate Minister where such forces were United Kingdom forces.
It is, I think, a modest proposal. I am sure all hon. Members opposite will agree that it is unfortunate that when we deal with the rights of British subjects they should be so silent and that it should be taken at so late an hour of the night. But that is no reason why the Committee should not consider the rights of British citizens with some care. This Clause is a small but commendable provision to safeguard their rights.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that we cannot accept this proposal. There are several objections with which I will

not weary the Committee in detail. The substantial objection is to be found in the fact that by the terms of Article VIII of the agreement there is no contemplation of adopting the principle of a nominal debt or anything of that kind. Instead of that, and in view of the state of unity, provisions were made for full arbitration and reference is made to on and off duty and so forth. I am sorry, but we regard this as quite inconsistent with the whole basis of the agreement and we cannot accept the new Clause.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It is quite obvious from what the Attorney-General said that he does not understand the new Clause. I regret to say that it seems equally clear that he has not understood the agreement about which we have been talking. If he looks at Article VIII of the agreement he will find that the whole object of that Article is agreement between the various governments to see, first, that they waive claims amongst themselves and then that those claims are assumed by the government of the receiving State.
It seems an essential corollary of the refusal of the Government to accept my Amendment to the previous Clause that they should accept this Clause. I do hope we shall get this straight. Are
British subjects injured by foreign military personnel to have legal rights to recover damages or are they not? My original suggestion was that there should be an Order in Council made under this Bill which would set out machinery whereby they were in a position to recover compensation for their injuries.
I understood both from what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading and from the passage which the Attorney-General quoted just now that that was the intention of the Government. If that is the intention of the Government, why do they not give effect to it? If, on the other hand, the Government do not mean to give British citizens any rights at all, why do they not be frank with the Committee and say so? The Committee and the country are entitled to know where the Government stand.
This Clause was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and I apologise for his absence. It is fair to point out that during the Second Reading


assurances were given that we should have ample opportunity for considering the Bill in Committee at reasonable hours. The simple object of the proposed Clause is to ensure that the Minister of Defence shall assume liability. If he does not assume liability, will the Attorney General tell us what are the arrangements by which there is any liability on the Government?
I had hoped that he would have understood the substance and purport of Article VIII. This Article makes fairly elaborate arrangements whereby each contracting party first waives its claims against the other contracting party for damage to property, and then makes arrangements for each contracting party to pay certain claims arising out of the acts or omissions of members of the forces or their civilian components.
There are elaborate provisions. In Article VIII (2, f) each contracting party waives its claim in any such case where the damage is less than, in the case of Belgium, 70,000 Belgian francs. In the case of Iceland it is 22,800 kronur. Even Iceland is in this and it is no use pretending it is not important. For Portugal it is another amount. All these matters are set out in detail in the agreement.
What we are anxious about is to ensure that British subjects have some easily ascertainable and defined method by which they can obtain compensation. If, as I had hoped, the Attorney-General had understood my previous Amendment as he ought to have done, he could have given an assurance quite simply that machinery would be set out in an Order in Council so that people could see what their rights were and take the appropriate steps not in the law courts, but by submitting to the claims tribunal and obtaining an award. It seems that the corollary flowing from the refusal of the Attorney-General to accept the Amendment is that he must make the thing watertight and have a provision inserted whereby liability is assumed by somebody.
As it is the Minister of Defence who will be responsible for making the payments on behalf of the other contracting parties it is logical that the Minister of Defence should assume qua British

subjects the liability which, but for State immunity and this agreement, would otherwise fall on the members of foreign forces and their civilian components.
I have done my best to explain this in the simplest possible terms to the Attorney-General. I do not think we should be able to accept any excuse for we have made the position intelligible and cogent. I hope now he has had the opportunity of understanding quite clearly what is required, that we shall have his assurance that in the interests of elementary justice this Clause will be accepted either now, or if he prefers it in the form of words he chooses, on the Report stage.

3.0 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I shall put the points which I have to raise very briefly in the hope that I shall gain the support of hon. Members opposite for them. Could the Attorney-General make it quite clear whether the Minister of Defence will accept any liability at all? We are entitled to a specific answer to that question. It is a matter of importance, because it would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs if, as a result of our discussions, there were some doubt on the point. The public and possible claimants under these provisions are entitled to know whether the Minister of Defence will be liable in respect of acts or omissions by members of visiting forces to whom the Act relates. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give a specific answer.
Secondly, if he says that it is impossible or undesirable that the proposed new Clause should be included in the Bill, will he indicate whether or not some provision to this effect will be included in the Agreement which is to be published in some form, the manner of which has not yet been disclosed to us? I hope that we can have a reply from the hon. and learned Gentleman to these two points.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING LISTS (ELIGIBILITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

3.3 a.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad to have the opportunity to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to certain anomalies which arise in regard to people who are waiting for council houses, but who find that, through no fault of their own, they are unable to get on to the housing list of any council.
I have been balloting for the Adjournment Motion for a year-and-a-half and I am delighted to have succeeded on so excellent an occasion, when the progress of the housing programme is beginning to make itself felt throughout the country and when the problem may be a little less acute than it was a year ago. But I felt that it was worth while raising the matter because to some people it is one of very great importance. They find that they have no chance of ever getting a house. Perhaps, in his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what can be done in such cases.
It would be right to call these people "British displaced persons." Normally, they are displaced because they have lived for a long period—a qualifying period—in one area and then for some reason—it may be marriage, it may be an increase in the family, it may be a change of work—they have to move out of that area and into a new area. The new local authority cannot accept them on its list, while the old one feels that they are no longer its responsibility. All local authorities make their own rules, and most of them have a qualifying period which varies from one to 12 years during which the applicant must have resided in the local authority's area to stand a chance on the list.
I have two examples, and I should think that there is no hon. Member who has not met examples, perhaps a dozen or more. My first example is that of a family called Langley, and the second of a family called Thomas. The second case would serve as a typical example of what happens. The nearest to a parental authority was Harrow. The Thomas family resided there from 1940 to 1949, after which Mr. Thomas married

and moved into a caravan in Edgware, in my constituency. Mrs. Thomas was taken very ill with a lung infection, and eventually one lung had to be removed.
This family had three children. They were still housed in a caravan, and one of the greatest chest doctors, Dr. Trenchard, of the Edgware General Hospital, wrote no fewer than eight letters to various Ministerial authorities and councils pointing out the desperate position in which the family was, unable without grave risk to the health of its members to stay in the caravan, and yet unable to get on to any local authority's list. Fortunately, in this instance commonsense eventually prevailed, and the Harrow Council re-housed the family in March this year. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say what he has done to guide councils into accepting such cases on their lists, and what success he has had.
The second category of case, which is one which will become more and more important in the next few years is the ex-Regular Service man. Many of these joined in the early 40's and are coming to the end of their engagements. When such men come out of the Forces they find they are on no local authority's list. I am aware that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government sent out a Circular on 31st January strongly encouraging local authorities to treat such applicants with equal priority with others; but there is a difficulty in trying to do this. All local authorities try to house people according to the measure of hardship they are undergoing.
If an ex-Service man is accommodated in married quarters he is not in a great state of hardship, and it is only when he finishes his service and the married quarters have to be given up that he finds himself in hardship. It is just at that stage that he wants a new house. It is most important that after serving their country, often overseas, with loyalty and gallantry, they should have some way of being re-housed. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain how we can deal with the increasing number of Service people who come into this category and fall on to no local authority's list.
The third category is the caravanners. I realise that this is a problem almost insuperable in its complexity. At the


edge of my constituency I have about 100 caravanners settled in the Green Belt on one farm. Most did not come from the borough of Hendon, and, therefore, it is difficult for Hendon to accept them on its lists, and certainly difficult to accept them ahead of 7,000 people waiting for houses on the lists. They have settled in the Green Belt against the planning authority's permission. From their own purses and on their own initiative they are trying to overcome a very difficult housing problem; and they should not suffer for the efforts they are making.
My fourth category is perhaps a special one—old people. In few cases are they on any list, but if we could find some way of housing them we should make available property now under-occupied. Many old couples, widows, or widowers are often housed beyond their needs and means, and often beyond their strength, and they would welcome a chance of moving into something much cheaper and easier to manage. That would make accommodation available for young families. The Parliamentary Secretary circulated local authorities on 12th February on this matter, and perhaps he would say what results he has achieved to get special accommodation built for old people.
There cannot be one Member who is not overjoyed at the progress the Minister of Housing has made in the last 10 months. It has certainly eased the problems to which I have drawn attention. It is no mean achievement to have successfully rehoused an extra 100 families for every day that the Parliamentary Secretary has held office. I hope he will go from strength to strength.

3.11 a.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I wish to add one class of person to my hon. Friend's second category, and I know the Minister has already generously circularised local authorities about them. Her Majesty's prisons are outside the ambit of this discussion but prison officers are not. Prisons are by no means always situated in ideal places to live, and when after many years of public service prison officers retire they have grave difficulties, in certain instances that have come to my attention, in finding anywhere to go under the present local authority regulations.
I have known a case where an ex-prison officer, after many years' service, was unable to go and live in his native city, because the local authority, in fairness to other applicants, enforce a points scheme with long periods of residence required. It must also be remembered that someone who has retired is mature and his children may live elsewhere, so that he loses that advantage under a points scheme.

3.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing (Mr. Ernest Marples): My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) has performed an important service, and I congratulate him on his tenacity in putting his name down on the Adjournment list. He raised four points. The first concerned a family called Thomas; the second concerned the question of caravanners; the third on which he dwelt the longest, concerned soldiers, and the fourth concerned old people.
Then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) introduced prison officers who had difficulty in finding accommodation. For those who have not been able to get on a council housing list it is a matter of very great hardship. To the individual it is just as great as if it were a large number of people who were denied admission to the council housing lists.
I will deal first with the soldiers, because they are the largest category numerically. The real difficulty with them in the past has been that they have not fallen between two stools, but have fallen between six or seven stools. It has been difficult for them to get on any list at all.
My right hon. Friend agrees with what the hon. Member for Hendon, North has said in principle, and does not wish soldiers to be prejudiced merely because they are not resident in a particular area. They cannot help it because their job is to go with the service to any part of the world to which they are sent. If they did not go they might be charged under the Army Act. I can well imagine the feelings of a man who has been six years abroad—perhaps in Korea—when he is not allowed admission to any council list. As I was a regimental sergeant major myself, I can not only imagine his feelings but predict with reasonable accuracy


his language—and his feelings of asperity would be justified.
The Minister wished to help them, and on 31st January he circularised all the local authorities. It would be as well if we examined what is the power of the Minister. First under the law—and satisfactory or not, it is the framework within which the Minister must work—we find that the Housing Act of 1936 governs this and it gives local authorities statutory responsibility for the management and control of their houses, including the selection of their tenants, and the selection methods they adopt are within their discretion except that under Section 85 of the 1936 Act they must give reasonable preference to those living in insanitary houses, to overcrowded families, large families, or those living under unsatisfactory housing conditions.
The Minister can only give them guidance. This is done first in a booklet called "Selection of tenants," issued by the old Ministry of Health and based upon a Report by the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which is a statutory body set up to advise the Minister many years ago. It consists largely of members of local authorities and has from time to time issued useful reports on various items such as living in flats, and the selection of tenants. I am firmly of the opinion that not enough use is made of this by local authorities, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, North will call the attention of his own local authority to the paragraphs I shall mention.
For example, in paragraph 22 it says that
in exceptional cases applications from persons being evicted from their present accommodation are sources of considerable anxiety to local authorities. However the general view, with which we concur, seems to be that it would be unreasonable for families who have enjoyed fairly reasonable accommodation until evicted to take precedence automatically over those who have endured unsatisfactory conditions for a long time and some local authorities therefore expect evicted families to find their own accommodation. On the other hand, special consideration might be given to families evicted from non-controlled dwellings through no fault of their own. This may sometimes be done by offering them accommodation in requisitioned property, or in temporary huts or camps from which the occupants could be gradually rehoused.
I should imagine that if the Service man had a service tenancy of a house and was evicted he would come under that particular paragraph.
In addition, Her Majesty's Government decided that the local authorities were not responding as they should to the service tenants and therefore on 31st January, as my hon. Friend said, they sent out a Circular, No. 8 of 1952, and paragraphs 2 and 4 particularly deal with the question of the service tenants. Paragraph 2 is well worth reading, so that it can go on record:
Many of these serving men have no established association with any particular district. If, therefore, a rigid residential qualification is imposed by the local authority for the area in which they wish to settle after discharge they would, because of their service, be prejudiced in their applications for housing accommodation. The Minister is confident that this is a position which local authorities will be anxious to avoid and that they will agree that these applicants should be given equal priority with others for consideration on the basis of relative housing need.
The first thing to consider is that my right hon. Friend does not have legal power to direct and, secondly, guidance in general was given under this particular pamphlet, and the third thing is that this was reinforced by a circular sent out at the beginning of this year. That briefly, but I hope emphatically, states the principle on which my right hon. Friend stands; but in practice it has been found that there are only a few local authorities which do not, at any rate, go a long way towards meeting my right hon. Friend's wishes, and to a large extent it is not the fault of the councils themselves—it may be perhaps what one would call an insensitive bureaucracy—and we have found from experience in the last six or nine months that we can get that general principle over in particular cases by intervention by the Ministry.
If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has a particular case where he thinks hardship is being caused to anyone and he will write to either my right hon. Friend or myself, we will go into that case and intervene. By intervening I would say that we have no authority and it would not be an intervention with all the weight of the Whitehall authority bearing down upon the innocent local authority. The intervention would rather be on what one might call the "old boy" basis, and it has in the past proved remarkably effective. Of all the cases that I have had anything to do with in these last six or nine months the local authority in every case has helped the Ministry


and the individual concerned. Therefore, if there is a case which any hon. Member has I hope that he will write to us about it.
The next point concerned what I think my hon. Friend called the Thomas case. This, again, is covered by paragraph 21 of this pamphlet. It says:
From time to time most local authorities encounter cases of great housing need arising from conditions other than those already referred to, and deal with them outside their ordinary selection schemes. We think this action should be taken in the most exceptional circumstances only One of the witnesses gave as an example of such a case a family in which a crippled child could attend a special school only if he lived in a different part of the county.
All these cases have been dealt with but I would remind my hon. Friend that there is no points system which would really give justice with the precision we should like. It is difficult to devise a scheme which would take into account every particular case. I wish he had got hold of the Thomas case a little earlier and perhaps we could have helped.
The next point relates to caravanners. Here, again, they would come within that paragraph and if the hon. Gentleman has any difficulty in getting them on the council's list will he please write to us.
In the case of the old people we are up against a real problem. Circular 36 was issued on 8th May, 1951, and paragraphs 6 and 7 of this are the operative sections as far as old people are concerned. Although this circular sets out what weight local authorities shall give to the old people the difficulty the authorities are finding is a lack of suitable buildings in which to house them.
It is no use hiding the fact that we have not a sufficient number of dwellings in this country to accommodate the old people. They require a special sort of housing due to their age, and in some cases because of their infirmities. They do not want to climb stairs or to have too many rooms to clean. They want special planning.
Recently I toured the Continent to study housing conditions and to steal all

ideas which we considered good. I was astonished to find that in certain schemes on the Continent for old people they have ideas which we have not yet adopted, and I am hopeful as a result of my visit we shall be able to introduce some of these excellent ideas. But until we do have the physical accommodation all the instructions in the world will not make the slightest difference.
I believe that for those in the autumn of life we must watch for two things: First, those who are able to look after themselves should carry on to the end of their days in a suitable building where they can be happy; secondly, if they are not able to look after themselves they should at any rate have some sort of accommodation entirely on their own, and, at the same time, have people looking after them. These are the two objects one has in mind.
Last year we exhibited at the Ideal Homes Exhibition a house for old people which attracted great attention. We had three exhibits, two of the "People's House," of which 70 per cent. of the houses now going to contract consist, and the other the "Old Person's Bungalow." It attracted a great deal of attention, but this type has not gone into production as fast as we would have liked. But I am hopeful after this visit to the Continent we shall get on.
As far as prison officers are concerned, I am glad to say that they are a small category in numbers, but still important, and if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind I hope he will let us know. I shall look at his remarks in HANSARD later, and will make a search in the Ministry to see what has been done. If it is not adequate I shall consult my right hon. Friend and perhaps include something in the next circular. In conclusion, I think the House will congratulate my hon. Friend for his diligence in bringing this important human aspect of housing before us tonight.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Three o'Clock, a.m.